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?

'If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today."

With last weeks murder/suicide of Kansas City Chief Jovan Blecher and girlfriend Kassandra Perkins, people from all walks of life often found themselves involved in this discussion in some way shape or form. While many of the details and motives remain a mystery, one thing remains clear - guns, do not kill people, people kill people. Many in the last week that have used this tragedy as a vehicle for their own agenda regarding gun laws and gun control and to my surprise it wasnt just the usual suspects on the "left". NBC's Bob Costas used the quote in the title to lead into his viewpoints of gun ownership in the country in an NFL halftime segment in last weeks Sunday night broadcast; 24 hours after the tragedy occurred. 

Agree or disagree with Costas using a sporting event to tout his political beliefs isnt the issue i have. Anyone familiar with sports knows Costas isnt one that hates the sound of his own voice. So if anyone in sports would be ignorant or arrogant enough to wade into such a controversial issue as gun control; Costas would be the man for the job. My issue isnt with him doing so from a network that is pretty decidedly liberal when it comes to their news, after-all "Lean Forward" is not just a slogan - as a verb it quite literally means to "Progress" and "Progressive" is the new word for Liberal... thus there is no hiding that networks news affiliation.

No, my issue lies squarely on the back of this notion that taking guns out of the hands of individuals will have some type of magical impact on stopping murders. The liberal mind that is hell bent on gun control and this cockamamie idea that this tragic murder could have been prevented if Belcher did not own a firearm is absurd and its a mindset closer related to the book & movie: Minority Report, as opposed to reasoning and logic.

Jovan Belcher wasn't a felon, he wasn't known to be mentally unstable nor did he even have a record. There was nothing that could have been done to keep Mr. Belcher from owning a legal firearm and obviously there is nothing that could have been done to keep him from owning one illegally either. So the issue isnt gun control or tighter restrictions; it is obviously gun ownership... period. That is not only an attack on the 2nd amendment its also a mistake on those that advocate such; as its the road to tyranny. Taking guns out of the hands of the public will not reduce crime, if anything, it will only create more of it and a bigger black market that already exists to support it. Dont believe me, ask the government how the war on drugs is going? How did the prohibition of alcohol work out?


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report from the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Some nut can get a gun legally or illegally and nothing will stop him from executing his despicable act before it happens. Some law abiding citizen can become emotional and beat his or her significant other with a bat or use a knife or shoot them with a gun and nothing will change that, the means that are used are of ill consequence. Crimes of passion and fits of rage are human problems, its not the choice of the instrument used to carry it out that's at fault. Trying to isolate one weapon as a problem where 99% of its owners never have to use it is just plain irresponsible. Bottom line: its just not possible in an open and free society to protect everybody from themselves.  

You want to stamp out gun violence? Allow and encourage more people to carry one. Every time there is a tragedy concerning gun violence the knee jerk reaction is the guns and the access are the blame and it couldnt be any further from the truth. The reason that one gun in a crowd of people can do so much damage is that not enough law abiding citizens carry a weapon. An overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are involving one person being armed and another person not being armed. How do you make these situation less damaging? Again... allow and encourage more people to carry a firearm.

If Mr Belcher didnt own a firearm would it have prevented her death? No idea, who knows what he may have picked up or did to her with his hands... and NFL linebacker doesnt need a gun to cause bodily harm to a women. If she had been carrying would this have prevented the death of Kassandra Perkins? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is assured... it would at least bettered her odds, without question. And that is the point, its basic mathematics... guns are the great equalizer and ill use this Ronald Regan quote to kill (pardon the pun) two birds with one stone:

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."

Department of Homeland Stasi or Security?

Lawmaker Demands DHS Cease Monitoring of Blogs, Social Media

 

Now this is rich. Here, we have a gigantic defense contractor getting a rather small (relativity 11 Million is small) contract to spy on ordinary Americans online activities regarding political topics on sites like Wired, Huffington Post, Drudge, Wikileaks etc etc. My first question after reading this was: if you are going to spy on us through an operation that focuses on social news media and blogs… why not someone from the NSA or some other agency where it could be hush hush? Well, according to the DHS director of office operations, Richard Chavez, General Dynamics possessed: “skilled technicians in surfing the web.”

Wow.

Not only has the Federal government been dumping 50+ billion dollars of year annually into DHS since 2003, it’s also the third largest cabinet department we have. You would think, that someone would be capable of “surfing the web” inside that bureaucratic wet dream, but apparently not so. That however, doesn’t surprise me. This rag tag assembly of departments is notorious for waste. Within its first five years of existence it had 15 Billion dollars worth of failed contracts; and that was by 2008! One shutters to think what that looks like now?

It is said that this program involves the monitoring of “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards.” The most telling piece of this article however is the revelation that General Dynamics will be sifting people’s posts or words “containing anti-American sentiment and reaction to policy proposals”. I find it jaw dropping that this isn’t covered across the front page of every newspaper in the country, but privacy isnt in vogue anymore; this is why Facebook is so huge in the first place.

And with General Dynamics focusing in on the big boys (Twitter and Facebook), it appears that if SOPA and the House didn’t get the internet under the black boots; the Executive Office would do it themselves (through a sub contractor). I guess it’s only apropos then that the DHS would hire a killing machine like General Dynamics to do it.

Between Facebook and Twitter being blamed for using users personal info to sell to third partys (or "let" it just happen to be available) or having both social network sites software being used as a tool for espionage, it’s apparent that the walls are closing in on the Internets value. That, being mainly the free passage of information but a close second is/was the freedom of anonymity.

Not to be outdone, Google announced last week it will launch Screenwise, a mining tool built inside their Chrome browser that will track your every click, your every move on the net – for a handsome price (is the precursor for the RFID mass implantation or the mark of the beast?). If you choose to take part, you can receive up to $25 in a year from Amazon.com. I would be willing to bet there is a waiting list.  

I’d sell my soul, my self esteem a dollar at a time. - MJK

Yawn...another war on concept announced: The "war on women".

I was emailed a link the other day from a friend of mine who frequents the Huffington Post. Him being a self described Marxist and uber liberal and myself as a Libertarian; we do share some commonalities on various points of view across the political spectrum.

So, it’s only natural that abortion is a topic we speak of from time to time. Now, my personal view of abortion is different from my political view of abortion; I am pro life. However, I wouldn’t dream of making that choice for another through legislation (or at gunpoint i.e. the State).

With that said, this article she forwarded was written by a Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro choice America. Quite the mouthful it is, no doubt. Its important to note the name: “Pro choice America” after the acronym “NARAL” for later in this exercise.

NARAL was formed in the late 60’s and had a lot to do with the woman’s movement regarding the right to choose. Of course on January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade gave the woman the right to choose and the rest is history as we have had no encroachments on the legislation since. I applaud the activism and rightfully so, a woman’s choice is just that. Right after the decision on that fateful day in January is where it gets sticky for this author.

Being that abortion laws were in fact repealed thus eliminating the use for half of the acronym in NARAL; those on the board of NARAL decided to keep the “N” for National and shit can the rest. So they replaced ‘Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws’ with ‘Abortion Rights Action League’. Trouble is abortion rights were already secure… so 20+ years later they became ‘National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - Pro choice America’. This constant reshuffling of the deck basically sums up the message, that you’re no longer relevant… but I have no problem with organizations collectively standing up for things they think are important.

Where I do have a problem is with the hyperbole used by this organization and others like it to inflame fires that don’t exist (non-profit or not). Its simply a distraction from much more pressing issues. To illustrate this point lets look at the first few paragraphs of this piece with my comments after each paragraph.

2011 was the year of the War on Women. Anti-choice politicians ignored the American people's call to focus on jobs and the economy, and instead made attacking a woman's right to make personal, private medical decisions one of their "highest legislative priorities."  

“2011 was the year of the War on Women” is complete nonsense. Much like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on terror or hunger etc etc etc… etc. This type of language is used to instantly garner support to eradicate a perceived threat to an enemy that cannot ever lose. Thus the funding is always needed, and that is the point.  

The U.S. House of Representatives held more choice-related votes in 2011 than in any year since 2000, and states enacted 69 anti-choice measures -- one shy of the record number set in 1999. In the more than 30 years I've spent defending a woman's right to choose, I can't recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch with our nation's values and priorities. And we're not out of the woods yet. The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012 here in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures throughout the country.

2011 was the year of the “War on women” yet by this authors own statistics, the years 2000 and 1999 were more egregious… wouldn’t at least one of those two years been the War on Women? Then the author says “I can't recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch” and I hate to beat a dead horse but again, 1999 and 2000 were worse, so…? Lastly, to my point about using specific monikers to evoke passion to defeat a concept that will never lose thus creating endless needs for funding and job security for staff isn’t this following quote indicative of that?

The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012

I had posted a much more condensed version of this rant on the Huffington Post but my comment never made it out of the “pending remarks”. I guess they missed it?

Chris Dodd - Most expensive whore money can buy

Chris Dodd is truly one of, if not the biggest scumbag to crawl out of the gutters of DC since Trent Lott. I would contend that the two of them could be pitted into a classic MTV staple (when it was still semi music television) Celebrity Death match as each being the biggest whores from their respective party’s in the last decade, which would be great theater. Two vile - spineless lawyers clawing each others eyes out for a stack of dollars is must see TV.

From his controversy surrounding his dealings with Countrywide getting sweetheart loans to his contributions and support for Frannie and Freddie even as the two were facing collapse to his AIG bonus “reversal”; Chris Dodd has always taken the sleazy route. I would assume it’s safe to say, the path of most lucrative assistance for sure, no doubt. So its of no surprise he would become a lobbyist after he left office.

He is a lawyer, but I can’t find any record he even practiced. He was in the Peace Corps and then the Army Reserve (thus excluding him from being sent to Vietnam) so what’s a 66 year old man with no job experience supposed to do? Kinda late in the game to take an entry level position… and with the amount of slime dripping off his torso; who would hire him anyway? Enter M.P.A.A.

Dodd (who spent 36 consecutive years in office) is on record saying he wouldn’t go through Washington’s "revolving door”. "No lobbying, no lobbying" was his answer to a question when facing "retirement". That however wouldn’t last long as he was tapped to replace Dan Glickman; a former nine time Congressmen (imagine that) as President of the Motion Picture Association of America last march for a reported cool 1.5 million annually. Within six months came SOPA. You have to tip your cap to the MPAA. You talk about fast-tracked? Six months and you got a bill with overwhelming support brewing? Money well spent, do doubt.

But we know SOPA failed. The grassroots movement is what makes the internet dangerous. It takes the power out of the elite and puts it back in the hands of the masses. And the representatives listened. This is what our Republic is about, is it not? Constituents prodding their elected leaders for changes they want... not their elected leaders beholden to corporate interests. 

The establishment was furious and Dodd led the charge; saying that websites that participated in the blackouts were somehow guilty of: "abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace." Dodd, then assumed it was a timing issue. He had the nerve to assume a “Slow timeline” would have produced different results. Code word for: If we rammed this bill through faster, maybe on the eve of a holiday or as a rider on another bill we would have been fine. Transparency is not something Dodd has to worry about anymore, as if.  

To top this off and the most despicable of all was Dodd’s message to Congress and the Senate. In a moment of stupidity or some might say clarity, Dodd summarizes the rotten core of politics today in one fell swoop of a paragraph.  

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd said. "Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.” 

I loathe lobbying, but what I loathe even more so is former elected leaders lobbying and talking out of both sides of their mouth. This issue is the single most treacherous and destructive action against our Republic today and in the days to come. Special interest and “K-Street” will bring this country to its knees before they suck every last dollar out of the public’s jugular without any constraint or admission of guilt. If this isnt an example of how in drastic need we are of strict term limits, what is?

Dead on Arrival.. PIPA and SOPA are bleeding out before they even hit the floor

                                                        Graphic courtesy of Propublica

What a difference 24 hours makes? We are seeing firsthand just how powerful the internet has become. The petitions and blackouts virtually killed two pieces of legislation that was aimed at crimping the net's influence; in one day. It stands to reason why those in the power structure wish to blunt its effectiveness. Information is the internet. Information = Power. The powerful don't like competition, therefore we must not allow any attempts to discredit or regulate the ability for us all to have access to it.

If a man empties his purse in his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. - Benjamin Franklin

Black Power

Whether it was Google's black stripe across its logo or Wikipedia actually blacking out its website for 24 hours, it appears freedom has one a battle in a long war waged by the State and its "business interests" in a conquest who's prize lies in the regulating of the internet.

Many internet users were surprised to see many of the sites the come to rely on so much in their day to day activities be altered or in cases like Wikipedia - shut down in protest of the legislation on the hill that threatens one of the key caveats of the net: anonymity.

That surly led to outrage, as users were directed by sites like Wikipedia to their local elected leaders of the House and Senate via their zip codes. I myself couldn't pass up on the opportunity to tell Mike Kelly, my Representative to the House just what i thought about HR 3261 (SOPA); and i did just that (thank you Wikipedia).

His office was rather cagey when asked of the Congressman's support for SOPA. Just introduced on October 26 2011, and being that its only in Committee, I was not sure where Mr Kelly would weigh in either way. He was not a co-sponsor and there was no vote and a Google search turned up... nothing. That's what his office basically told me... nothing: "we have no comment either way".

According to SOPA Track, Mr Kelly has received $101K from Pro-SOPA interests compared to $29K from Anti-SOPA interests. There has been online petitions with millions of signatures...4.5 million in Googles alone according to Forbes. In just days, eighteen Senators have tucked tail and dropped support due to the public firestorm, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds on a national level and in my case with Mr Kelly; the local as well.

Its a view that usually goes unnoticed, being the people vs big business and the representatives caught in the middle with their pants down. I, like many sit in eager anticipation to see where loyalties and convictions lie.