My burning question(s) for "Gay America"

I don't use drugs. I have never used a prostitute. I do not drink raw milk. I don't have six wives. I would never (willingly) take part in an abortion. I could go on and on. There are many things I don't participate in and in some cases find myself diametrically opposed to; but that doesn't give me, or the state, the right to dictate conformity to our beliefs. That's an arrogant and elitist's modus operandi. 

Propostion-8 is no different. 

I have heard many opposing views and with them some very passionate and articulate points (regarding insurance reasons and what not) but at the end of the day it comes down to one simple philosophy; live and let live. 

I understand this doesn't work for many of us. I understand for many, it goes against their faith. I also understand the culture we are embracing as time goes on, is less and less like the culture that this country was founded upon and how change from that could be the very undoing of our republic. As so many have said, America will never fall from the outside, it will crumble, like all empires, from within. This from Abraham Lincoln:

 "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

 At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

 
I get all that. 

But, our nation was founded on freedom and liberty for all men. The meaning is universal and authoritarian persecution is the archenemy to liberty. Denying another person their choice to do something because it doesn't fit into your view of how the country should live; is a contradiction to what being an American is. This is doing exactly what Lincoln warned us about because a freeman is free to live his life, with respect to others, as he sees fit. To be told that a man is lesser and cannot participate in his own free will because he chooses an alternative lifestyle is not free.

For too many years Blacks were slaves. Women weren't allowed to vote...These took changes as well. People will argue those are fundamental natural rights that had to be corrected. While this is true, it is also true that denying a persons right to live in peace, with the basic natural rights we heterosexuals enjoy, just because they are attracted to the same sex, is ridiculous.

I cannot speak for anyone else but as a man, no matter how many naked men you dangle in my face... there will be no temptation. I'm never going to want to "try it out". You can’t be infected gay by gay people. The media will never turn a straight person into a gay person. You can’t pray it away. There is no sinister plot to deride the species of fertility. Actually, I think it’s quite logical to liken being gay to Gatorade and its ad campaign: is it in YOU? For me it’s rather simple. Why no, no it is not. 

From a pure primal point of view, as a male, I never had any problems with homosexuals - especially gay men. And no, not because I had some closeted tendencies locked away either. It was because at an earlier age (in my teens) I began to understand a disproportionate amount of gay men were found to be attractive by women. In turn, it brought everyone up in the "pecking order". This is just simply the law of supply and demand. I guess I have always been a free market guy after-all?

So, "Gay America", as you can see, I respect your rights to your life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness to marry whomever you will. So you too can receive all the perks of being married: divorce, the decline in household income, a DVR full of Dancing with the Stars (pardon the semi-gay pun) etc, I do however have just a few questions for you and they all stem from this one:

Will you support MY rights that are already on the books, as in the Bill of Rights? The same rights that apply to all of us Americans; regardless of color, gender or sexual attraction.

Do I have faith you will be so vigilant against the PC Gestapo who wish to suppress the 1st Amendment? Protecting the freedom of speech with the same courage your small community displays standing up to those who seek to not allow your equal rights and marriages? To even stand up and protect the rights of those religious organizations that does not wish to marry you (homosexuals) in their churches?

Can I count on you to voice and stand against any encroachment on the 2nd amendment?

Will you stand with me against the tyranny of an executive office who's not only held in check the previous administrations assault on civil liberty's but has gone out of its way to expand this assault on freedom with their D.H.S bullet buying surge, their drone surveillance, National Defense Authorization Act etc? All measures that trample on my 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.

I ask these questions not because my support for your freedom to marry comes with a clause or a condition of support. No, my support is based on a simple premise... as long as anyone isn't harming or encroaching on another person’s property or life; I support you. Again, live and let live, a simple premise. A premise that seems to have been lost amongst all the noise that permeates through the united states of division. Are you for liberty for all or for freedom that only promotes your self interests? Where do you stand?

Democrat Sheriff goes HAM on Liberal gun grabbers.

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

I got a little tingle up my leg it appears?? Sign me up!!

This was a public service announcement on radio last week in Milwaukee courtesy of County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Here is a man with a badge telling you that your best option for safety in Milwaukee is no longer calling your police it’s protecting you and your family with a fistful of steel (thank you RATM). 

 

Now of course this didn’t go over well with everyone in Milwaukee. The Mayor had this to say about Sheriff Clarke’s call for public action in arming themselves:

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie,"

With layoffs and furloughs this could be a political sparring match with the Mayor and the Sheriff but the good Sheriff has held this strong belief even in the wake of Newtown. He went to as far call for an armed officer in every school in the country (which I strongly agree with).

Not to be undone, Sheriff Clarke had this to say about the Mayor:

"Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Here we have an interesting situation. We have a man of the law who is actually a Democrat not only advocating for an increasingly armed public but also going out of his way to call those (read Liberals) that support gun restrictions what they truly are:

"Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away.  Liberals are shameful."

And you are never going to guess how the Sheriff suggests we pay for a cop in every school…

“With all the money we spend on going green projects and other waste of money social service spending we do."

Bu... bu... but we cant do that, what about global warming? It appears Sheriff doesnt care for talking points, now does it? Here is a Democrat, who won his last election with 70% of the vote, thinking outside the box and favoring people’s rights and security over those of the state’s; which naturally are seized when you deny the rights of the public. Does it get better than this?? 

Now ask yourself, where do you come in on this debate? Are you a “wolf at the door” as Sheriff Clarke called the criminal? Are you a sheep who is in favor of gun control? Or are you a man/women of free will who wants to maintain their God given rights to protect his/her life?

Now only if we could have this non partisan common sense in Washington.

Dereliction of duty: How Black America has been hijacked by "race hustling pimps".

Here is a disclaimer. I am not black, I am a white male. Some of you may find this contrived or think I have no place speaking about issues pertaining to a race that I don’t belong to. I can accept that. Some may even go as far as a call me a racist (it’s been done before) and that is your right to feel that way as well. However, facts are not racist. They are facts. I also think it’s very important that black folks receive a different message that they are accustomed to hearing from “the left’. That’s why I spend many posts on this subject and with that said, let’s begin.


This is a tale of two stories, literally. I read in the last two days, two separate articles written by black men regarding race and politics. Now, these stories are not on the same subject matter but I think you will see that they are connected nonetheless and its not a connection based solely on race but instead freedom and prosperity and how you go about achieving both.

This started by me reading a great piece at Investor.com last night regarding how being a black conservative author in today’s world gets you ignored. Or at least that is the claim made towards Ebony Magazine in this article. Now, I purposely led with that first statement because there are simply not enough conservative black voices in media & the political arena as well and it’s about time this becomes a discussion.

That is to not say there is a shortage of black conservatives, on the contrary, they do not exist. In fact conservative values were at the core of the civil rights movement; regardless how progressives try to spin otherwise.

Sure it was progressive in moving blacks forward to having equal rights, but that shouldn’t have been a fight in the first place. Equal rights for all are a tantamount to freedom and liberty. A true conservative/libertarian mindset does not allow for racism and collectivism. This lack of rights for all was a failure as a country from the very beginning. Now as these voices remain isolated, I find myself asking, why is this so?

From a writing point of view it’s probably a lack of readership. I don’t think its bad judgment on black media’s part as much is it is just bad business. Most blacks identify with progressive values or vote overwhelmingly democratically, thus reading about a conservative mindset would simply go unread. Politically, it’s no different but with a slight twist.

At the center of this twist is the Congressional Black Caucus. Nobody politically defines a race in US politics more so than the CBC. With now 42 members of congress, the CBC is not only the largest caucus racially it’s also incredibly strong because they are practically untouchable. Nobody in media wants to even poke, let alone tear a hole inside that bee hive’s nest for fear of being stung by the politically correct swarm that seem to have infiltrated every level of our lives.

But hey, I’m a blogger with such a low (but dedicated) readership; I am perfectly happy to do so. After all, it’s not like this is my first rodeo concerning the CBC anyway.

Now, getting back to the article written by Mr. Larry Elder, a quote by Congressman Cleaver, D-Mo., caught my eye.

"As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14% (black) unemployment, if we had a white president, we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

This also isn’t the first time I have written about Mr Cleaver and his obvious double sided coin regarding race. This is just one in a long line of quotes that are obviously inflammatory yet it goes completely unnoticed or at least unchallenged by the masses. Double standard you say? You bet. But this notion that it’s acceptable for a black president to show high unemployment in the black community further drives home my point I have been making about the CBC. They are not concerned with the problems just the appearance that they are concerned.

As we usher in the 113th Congress and with it the CBC gaining more and with it more power and yet here Black America sits with unemployment almost double the national average. Prisons are filling up at all time highs. And what are the solutions that the Congressional Black Caucus has for these dire times in the black community? The same tired excuses & handouts they have been fighting for, for over 30 years and what has changed since in terms of results? Nothing. We have a black President but has Black America taken that next step with his re-election? No.

So what are the solutions? I don’t have the answers nor do I pretend to but I know two things regarding this subject for certain:

1. Freedom and liberty is a cure all because it encourages individual responsibility
2. Self proclaimed black leadership is not leading.

In separate piece written by Dr Wilmer Leon for Politic365.com, there is a slightly different take on this viewpoint. Dr Leon argues that with a new rising class of young educated workers who are settling for lower wages and multiple lower paying jobs, called the “Precariat Class”, this class will be so large that the future for Black America and its relation to employment will be “catastrophic”. This isn’t hyperbole; Dr Leon brings up accurate information that troubles the black community.

What I disagree with the Dr. is the assertion that the government should do more. Because when the government does more as we all know, it means taking from someone else. This happens through a seizure of either a right, freedom and/or their wealth. Dr Leons argument is that austerity measures should not be taken in this economy with many people struggling:

 “In challenging times such as these the government should be investing in the economy not cutting back.”

The problem is we have invested into this economy. We have overspent long before President Obama got into office and we have done so with no results, not only in the black community but the country as a whole. The standard of living for most Americans has remained stagnant for years and yet we continue to pump more liquidity in the market creating inflation that ultimately acts as a tax on those that rely most on cash. Nobody relies more on cash than the poor and destitute, black or white, red, blue or yellow; the poor all spend the green the same.

The question begs; why not try a different path to prosperity if the path that has been tried simply does not work? Why not reach out to the black population and drive home the point that over 70% of black children growing up in a single parent family home is the single biggest reason the black community faces so many challenges? This could also explain why "the wealth accumulation of the average European American family is 20 times that of the average African American family".

Why not try what China has done and encourage its population to buy gold & silver?

Why not encourage the 2nd amendment as a viable option to black on black crime statistics and show that legal gun ownership would be the biggest deterrent to black on black crime?

Why not come out and support an end to the racist drug war that puts so many black men in prison?

Are these guaranteed solutions? Of course not and I don’t know if they will solve all the problems but lets put an end to the patronization of the black community by the black leadership. Engage them like adults. Don’t just hand out a fish, show them how to fish. There is only one way to achieve prosperity and freedom and that cannot be given to you by a government; it comes from within.

‘Now is the Time’

This is the the President's "plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence”. This "plan" is what spawned the 23 executive orders on Jan 16, 2013. This has also been called the most comprehensive gun control legislation passed since 1968, eclipsing the "assault weapon ban" so often referred to now that was signed into law in the 1994 under Bill Clinton.

If we remember anything politically speaking about 1968 it would have to be the assassinations of Dr Martin Luther King & Robert Kennedy. The tightest gun control ever to that point was introduced before the deaths of both men but was quickly fast-tracked and passed after their murders. Reading a piece written about 1968 this week in regards to gun control reminded me of something I read in 2008 from then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who was “advising” the newly elected President on crisis management:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

As the President walked up on the stage this week and signed his executive orders into place all I could think about was at what ends will this lead to? Actually, it wasn’t soon after that initial thought before I came to the conclusion of not “what” ends, but “when” those ends will come. When will we see the end of the legal ownership of any firearm?

The right to own guns keeps man free. Free from the state or free from foreign invaders. It says so right in the 2^nd Amendment. I would find this humorous if it wasn’t so damn offensive.

The state piles up guns and then turns them on you and forces you to do as they say or they punish you with the threat of taking away your freedom which infringes on your liberty and pursuit of happiness. Seems like a conflict of interest regarding rights, no? Then, the state, despite all the guns and all the money, also does a piss poor job of keeping foreign invaders out of the country. From “terrorists” to illegal aliens the borders remain wide open.

If that wasn’t enough of a kick in the groin, the state also looks down upon militias, essentially blowing the 2^nd amendment out of the water on those grounds alone. The part about “a well regulated militia” isn’t time sensitive, regardless what anyone wants to say otherwise. There is no expiration on the meaning of the amendment, constitutional scholars be damned. These examples and the latest push executive order(s) are all attacks on not only our right to own firearms but it’s also an affront on our collective common sense.

 

When it comes to bureaucrats and the 2^nd amendment there seems to be a major disconnect. The 2^nd amendment is pretty direct, it’s pretty plain English. Thus, there is no reason to “read into” anything. Yet the federal government shows no respect for something so straightforward. Is this a coincidence? Not a chance.  
 

Semantics, are some of the firsts arrow pulled out of the quiver of control. Using wordplay and rearranging definitions to justify the means to an end – that is the ultimate goal of those in power. They also use situations and crisis to manipulate the public trading in freedom for security. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Bush did it, Clinton before him etc etc… this isn’t something new but I find it pretty interesting for a president who promised "transparency". Who ran on "change". It is what it is. Call it Machiavellian or call it just being a politician. Whatever the definition you  come up, see it for what it is.

The executive orders signed into place this week are centered on ‘assault rifles’. Now, ask anyone for a definition of what an assault rifle is and you are sure to get something different from everyone. So, what happens when banning ‘assault rifles’ or reducing magazines doesn’t stop school violence or mall shootings or movie theater shootings? Well, naturally the handguns will be next, just like they came for them in NY and Chicago. Then maybe we will see the call to ban “assault weapons”. And the assault weapons definition is about as ambiguous as you can imagine.

Here is a list of “mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks” in China from 2010-2012. China already has strict gun ownership laws, thus the truly dedicated to killing innocent will use any means necessary, as you can see. England (who else) has actually seen a push to eliminate “long pointed kitchen knives" to "reduce deaths from stabbing”. So again I ask: when does it end?

It ends when the anointed and "elected" say it ends. It ends when the calamities of life cease to exist. They won’t and that is the whole point. Let me leave you with this; and this will be the most important thing I will ever say on this topic.

The rush to get your gun, chipping away at your rights with one piece of legislation at a time is no accident. The state fears you. When it’s no longer able to control you with its debt mechanism and money manipulations… when it all comes tumbling down through hyperinflation or a spiral of irreversible deflation; the state will have to protect itself be any means necessary. The more the state can force dependency (SSI, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, low income housing, universal health care etc etc) the less important freedoms become or at least the dependency to live trumps freedom. The more divided we become, the easier it is to quell resistance. A people not divided and instead unified not to mention well armed is the ultimate threat to that power. 

The state fears you and me... and for good reason.