Boy Scouts may be better off without Southern Baptists

The LA Times story headed: “Southern Baptists consider abandoning Boy Scouts of America” is not an unexpected development . . . at least not from the Southern Baptists.

The truly sad part of the situation is that young boys are being discriminated against because of their “God-given nature” . . . one would almost have to assume that people who truly believe in God would understand that homosexual boys and girls are not “choosing” to be outcasts from society; they are what and who they are (who they were meant to be) because The Creator made them that way. It’s sad but not, however, surprising!

This is not to imply that Southern Baptists do not “truly” believe in their God, they no doubt do, but they also believe in irrational concepts like the absolute inerrancy of a Book that was pieced together from the writings of mere mortal men, and they believe this in spite of the thousands of times the Bible contradicts itself and in spite of the obviously illogical nature of “blind faith.”

Boys who want to experience acceptance in a peer group, regardless of their sexual identity, are far better off without the judgment and influence of a group of people like Southern Baptists.

This is NOT to imply that Southern Baptists are bad people; they are just lost! Lost from reality, reason and logic and in real-life terms that makes them less than adequate life-guides for children.

Edward Snowden: Patriot or Villain

Is Edward J. Snowden a hero, as the sign says, or a treasonous villain who, possibly, as an operative for a foreign government, was under orders to pull the teeth out of an important government counter terrorism operation.

I would say he is probably a patriotic American who came across the information that our government was illegally accessing phone records and was so fed up with the insidious tactics of the Obama administration over the past 5-1/2 years, he felt that he had to do something . . . something rash, even if that would put him in danger.

If he was working as a foreign spy or even as an enemy of America, as many in the media (Left- as well as Right-leaning) have suggested, there would have been no reason for him to come forward last week and break his cover; the information was out there and he could have just ‘disappeared’. If he was anything but a martyr for the cause of government transparency, he would have not gone to Hong Kong and then revealed exactly where he was in that city, when he knew that Hong Kong and the United States had an extradition treaty; instead he would have simply boarded a Hong Kong ferry that would have taken him to mainland China where he could ask for, and probably receive, political asylum. (Granted, he also probably knew that extradition from Hong Kong is a very lengthy process, giving him time to argue his case.)

Today the ACLU filed suit against the Obama Administration, charging that their mass collection of phone records is illegal. I don’t often take sides with the ACLU, but this time I’m behind them. This time they are going up against a president who acts more like a Czar that an American president. A president who has made it clear through his actions and through the actions of his appointees that he believes that there is no law, civil liberty, tradition or precedent in the United States that is more important to him than his personal/political agenda.

I may be wrong about Snowden and his motives, time will tell on that one, but it’s been apparent (at least to me) from the very beginning of his administration that neither Barack Hussain Obama or his political appointees can be trusted or believed.

REFERENCES:

N.Y. Yimes: A.C.L.U. Files Lawsuit Seeking to Stop the Collection of Domestic Phone Logs

Chron.com: US leaker Snowden faces hard choices while hiding

Rape in the Military: Hormones or Disrespect?

A Fox News article today focuses on the perceived ‘epidemic’ of sexual assaults in all branches of the armed services.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday brought in the top brass from each of the armed services for a grilling about the possible reasons behind the rash of sexual assaults and their plans for solving the problem; ironically it was one of their own senators who was the first one placed over the proverbial barrel, not one of the brass. Senator Saxby Chambliss actually had the temerity to state that the reason for the rash of sexual assaults might just be (in his words):

“The young folks that are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22, or 23. Gee whiz, the level — the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur.”

Yes! The senior senator from Georgia actually said “gee wiz;” and yes he is probably at least 90% correct in his assessment but he was attacked from both sides of the aisle for saying it . . . that’s not what the publicity hounds on the Senate Committee wanted to hear. The committee didn’t assemble to hear reason or logic, they wanted to hear solutions, and rightly so. They also wanted to rip some “brass” off the top brass to satisfy ‘blood-thirsty’ female voters.

If Sen. Chambliss had thought to add: “but that’s no excuse for rape” he could be sitting peacefully sipping Southern Comfort tonight instead of trying to justify his apparent justification of rape. When even Debbie Wasserman Schultz is more correct on any subject than you are, you know you’re in a very tenuous position.

The military is, and always has been, a reflection of society in general. Our society today has become more sexualized and less respectful of authority — in two words, ‘less civilized.’ In what has been referred to as the “good old days” people had more respect for authority and for each other because the rules were, for the most part, logical, rational and fairly enforced. Today however, logic and rationality have been replaced by “zero tolerance” which is anything but logical or rational. Zero tolerance was created by lazy school administrators and was soon adopted by lazy business administrators. Nonsensical rules turn the ‘fear of breaking’ rules into the ‘challenge of breaking rules without getting caught.’

It is those teenagers and young adults who have developed an indifferent attitude toward rules who are going into the military and not adapting to the strict, respectful, no nonsense culture required for military discipline.

I can’t imagine a scenario where society will ever return to the old attitudes about the sanctity of rules but we can go forward! Go forward into a culture where rules are tempered with common sense and, for that reason, breaking them is not easily justified by potential rule breakers.

Perhaps more classroom time is needed in military boot camp, to reeducate the kids that our society has failed.

Scotland: Force-Fed Religion in Schools

In Edinburgh, Scotland religious assemblies are held in all schools (even the ‘private’ or non-denominational ones) several times during the school year. This is mandated by the Scotland Education Act of 1980. While, here in America, this seems like what it is, a despicable overreach by the Church of Scotland, until recently, it was just the way things are in Scottish schools. Up until 1872 all education in Scotland was controlled by the Church of Scotland. When non-denominational schools were allowed to open their doors, the religious aspect of student’s education did not significantly change.

Finally now, parents who object to mandatory “spiritual” education are starting to fight back and are hoping that, through a ballot referendum, they will have the support of the majority of Scottish voters to eliminate the religious curriculum in non-denominational schools. The issue is now before the Edinbourough City Council’s Petitions Committee.

A main bone of contention right now is the cost of a special election to decide the issue of the propriety of religious indoctrination in non-denominational schools. Setting up and administering a special election it would cost the city of Edinborough an estimated 10 million pounds (the equivalent of over $15 million U.S).

This is a very timely issue in Edinborough that is drawing a lot of public debate, if the issue is not resolved in a special election, it will most likely be held over until the next general election (in 3 years).

The “rebels” in this particular “war against the Church of Scotland” (basically a Presbyterian church) are the members of and supporters of the Edinburgh Secular Society. Since less than half of the population of Scotland claim any allegiance whatsoever to the Church of Scotland, the ballot initiative has a good chance of passing . . . if it is allowed to reach a vote by the general public.

Generally, in the United States, secularists tend to do quite a bit of “overreaching” themselves but the Edinborough secularists seem to have a very valid cause for complaint.

References:

Scotsman.com: <a href=”http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/let-us-pay-10m-bill-to-axe-religion-in-schools-1-2953813″&gt; Let us pay: £10m bill to axe religion in schools</a>

Wikipedia: <a href=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland”&gt; Church of Scotland</a>

National Secular Society: <a href=”http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/02/edinburgh-secularists-back-bid-to-abolish-religious-observance-in-schools”&gt; Edinburgh secularists back bid to abolish religious observance in schools</a>

The Problem With “Openly Straight”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military is a sensible position IF it is applied to ALL the troops.

When I was in the Navy there was never even an eyebrow raised when I bragged about the bar girls I spent my nights with while on shore leave in Kaohsiung, Manila and Hong Kong. Why wasn’t I put on report and brought before a ‘Captain’s Mast’ for breaking the regulation that prohibited me from discussing MY sexual orientation?

I don’t have to say it, you can figure it out . . . but I’ll say it anyway for those of you who remain clueless about the phobic nature of the human race: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ was never even intended to apply to heterosexuals. The majority rules and the majority are heterosexual. The military (and the Congress) may have thought they were attempting to correct a social imbalance by doing away with “don’t ask, don’t tell” but all they managed to do was make the problem worse by officially categorizing the sexual orientation of their troops.

Life has become more dangerous for gay troops who choose to become “open” about their sexuality because the military has painted a ‘target’ on their backs — a target that, for sure, will not be ignored by the more ‘aggressive’ “straight” troops who will always be in the majority; many of whom have been taught all of their lives that gay people are freaks to be ridiculed and, in many cases, even physically abused. (‘It’s alright, they’re just queers!’)

This past week, in an organization for youths . . . an organization that common sense suggests should be completely devoid of sexual agendas . . . the words “openly gay” were bantered about like they actually belonged in a discussion about rules for youth organizations. The Boy Scout’s of America (BSA)  National Council voted to allow “openly gay” scouts in the BSA and by doing that they declared that sexual orientation IS important in Boy Scouting (More important than the boys themselves?) and, beyond that, they declared, by implication, that it is absolutely proper for Boy Scouts to be open about their sexual preferences (and conquests, real or imagined). (Soon we may see merit badges for “Openness.”)

I would suggest that it defies logic why any organization created to teach and benefit American youth would make sexual orientation a defining issue, but when you consider that Boy Scouting is traditionally sponsored by religious organizations, it’s perfectly clear why logic plays no part in their rules.

100 years or so ago when the Boy Scouts began, there was no controversy about “gay scouts” only because gays were considered a ‘socially unacceptable” sub-culture that no one talked about. Gay boys had to hide their feelings for fear of rejection and physical abuse. Gay boys were taught that they were freaks of nature and were damned to Hell. Boys, however, will always be boys and indeed they were; gay boys secretly (very secretly) found each other and straight boys openly, proudly and loudly  “chased skirts” and bragged of their lust and their ‘conquests’ all with the smiling approval of the BSA.

The BSA’s ‘Bible-based’ oath which refers to being “morally straight” would have been a good one if it had applied to all scouts, not just the gay ones. If you had listened to “Conservative Talk Radio” during the debate leading up to the BSA Council vote, you would have heard that phrase: “morally straight” was specifically used (by supposed Christians) as a disqualifier for admitting gay scouts in the organization. Hearing that, you would have to suppose that that they think that their God created heterosexuals with one hand and homosexuals with the other (or something like that.)

This rant would not be complete without mentioning ‘activists;’ those who thrive on this type of controversy. It seems that, for some of the gay activists (the loudest and most “colorful”),  gay is not only their sexual identity, it is the entirety of their being.

It might be more beneficial to their lives if activists of all stripes (sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, etc) came down to earth and realized that activism is only effective up to a point; after that point their pride and arrogance only serve to separate them from the society that they are supposedly asking to be a part of.

WHY?

An article published in the University of Wisconsin student newspaper “The Badger Herald” is headlined: “Paul Ryan: GOP must stay strong against abortion”.

In response to that, this blog post is simply titled: “WHY?“

To begin with, the Badger article illuminates the immature logic of the anti-abortion crowd with statements like Paul Ryan’s statement: “pro-life advocates need to win over pro-choice supporters and key legislators by finding common areas where they can both agree.”

It is absolutely laughable to suggest that there is room for compromise on either side. Pro-choice supporters stand under one banner, the one that reads: “abortion is a choice that must be freely made ONLY by the woman who is carrying the unborn baby.” Pro-Life supporters, on the other hand, stand under the banner that reads: “The choice to give birth should NOT rest in the hands of the woman who is carrying the unborn baby. She has no choice!” The pro-life stance not only does not make sense, it ignores the fact that this is America and not a dictatorship or a theocracy. We have free choice, especially when it comes to our own bodies. Granted we are rapidly loosing that free choice thanks to the current crop of numskulls who daily gamble our futures in Washington D.C., but we must cling to the hope that that will change for the better.

Intelligent people understand that most people were brought up under the influence of a religion, that religions tend to be very dictatorial and religions tend to ‘forbid’ certain things. Some people however grow up and realize that free-choice in America also means freedom from religious dictates. Others refuse to embrace the free choice granted to them by the Constitution and would rather have the church make their difficult life decisions. Neither way is wrong! Everyone needs to make their own choices, but the fact is, ‘one size fits all’ only works in the garment industry and never works for people with free minds who would rather make their own life decisions.

I guess if Paul Ryan were to be totally honest (not that a politician can afford to be totally honest if he or she wants to keep his or her job) his answer to my “WHY?” would be simply ‘because I believe abortion is wrong’. To be totally honest, he would have to admit that his religious upbringing has made it impossible for him to think for himself about this (or possibly about many of life’s other difficult issues).

It would be a gargantuan task to convince people in Federal office that no one voted to put the fate of the human race in THEIR hands, we voted to put the security and sovereignty of the United States in their hands. It would be a gargantuan task but well worth the effort.

If any intelligent person is looking for moral guidance, moral clarity or a moral authority, I truly believe that the LAST place they will look is in the halls of Congress.

Another Shooting That Could Have Been Stopped Before Anyone Got Hurt

USA Today reports another school related shooting today at approx. 2 pm (EST) in Christiansburg, VA.:

“The shooting happened (today, Friday, April 12, 2013) in a community college branch at the New River Valley Mall, not far from Virginia Tech. An 18-year-old community college student was charged with wounding two women with a shotgun at a mall branch of the school in southwestern Virginia Friday afternoon.”

Note that this shooter did not use a semi-automatic weapon, he used a completely legal shotgun.

One particular sentence in the USA Today story caught my attention:

“A man using a public computer in the mall told ‘The Roanoke Times’ that he saw the a man with a gun walk into the college lobby and point his weapon at a woman. He ran and did not see the shooting.”

If this witness, or some other person who saw this kid carry a shotgun into the mall, was trained to carry and use a weapon, he would more than likely not have run and allowed what could have been another mass shooting to continue. The shooting could have been averted.

Therein is the basic message that the NRA and other 2nd Amendment groups are attempting to relay to the media, the government and the public: ‘more guns in the trained hands of normal citizens = fewer innocent lives lost or put in jeopardy.’

In this case no one was killed and the shooter surrendered immediately to the first uniforms on site (Mall security officers) but it could have turned out a lot differently. Hypothetically, if this particular shooter had been confronted in the mall parking lot or in the mall itself by a legally armed and trained citizen, before he got to the college office, he may have laid down his gun and saved two innocent college employees the pain and expense of being shot and hospitalized. Had this unstable young man not laid down his weapon when confronted by a legally armed and trained citizen he may have been justifiably wounded or killed with no innocent lives jeopardized.

Most states (with the sad exception of Illinois (also Washington D.C.)) have some form of licensing procedure that would allow willing and stable adults to carry a concealed weapon but instead of encouraging this and focusing on the innocent lives this could save, the media and the gun grabbers are focusing on regulations that will deter responsible gun ownership. Their misguided theory is that legal gun ownership by people who have proven themselves to be responsible citizens and who are willing to help law enforcement stop criminals, is inherently dangerous and even reckless. All this attitude is doing (and has done) is to make criminals and other unstable people feel safer and to embolden them.

Ironically, Illinois, the one state that allows virtually NO citizens to carry guns, is one of the highest crime states in the country. Wonder why?

The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution

Opinion among many news commentators as well as actual news reporters is that the Supreme Court will once again try to avoid making the difficult decision, as it did with the “Obamacare” ruling, by finding a technicality that allows them to do nothing about Proposition 8 or DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). As Sally Kohn, one of the FoxNews.com ‘opinionators’ admits: “The Supreme Court will either ride the wave or try to block it or dodge it, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter. The tide has irrevocably turned.” (NOTE: The headline (see “Reference”) for this Fox News Opinion piece, because Fox News vocally opposes same-sex marriage, made no attempt to be fair or balanced by unfairly implying that because Chief Justice Roberts has a cousin who is gay it will sway his opinion.)

Ms. Kohn is right that the tide has turned. The majority of the public now supports the right of same-sex couples to marry and obtain all the benefits and rights that go along with a legal marriage but, at the same time, Ms. Kohn is very wrong! It does matter a great deal what the Supreme Court says when they make their ruling. Even the most Conservative Justice will have a hard time dismissing the FACT that to deny legal marriage based on gender, race or sexual preference is clearly unconstitutional. Not only is it unconstitutional now, because public opinion has turned to favor same-sex marriage, the opposing view has always been unconstitutional.

The argument used to be that because the majority of the California voters voted for Proposition 8, those who opposed it will have to live with it and because other states have adopted DOMA or DOMA-like provisions into their state constitutions, it is legal in those states to refuse marriage to same sex couples. Those were false arguments! Public opinion on this issue does not matter nor do biblical admonitions!

The U.S. Constitution overrules state laws that are unconstitutional at the Federal level and if our Supreme Court Justices have the intestinal fortitude to interpret the Constitution correctly they can do nothing but overturn Proposition 8 and DOMA.

This is not, as most media outlets have described it, a “gay rights” issue; this is an issue of equal justice under the law for all American citizens, without regard to their sexual identity or their choice of a marriage partner.

REFERENCE:

FoxNews.com Opinion: Marriage equality, the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice’s cousin

The Advent of Obamaism

It’s January of 2009: the National Debt as a percentage of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is at record levels, the economy is crumbling, the unemployment roles are burgeoning and a new president is in office. He’s charismatic, charming, well spoken and he is in every sense ‘America’s Great Hope’ for survival. The national problems are not his fault but he was elected on the assumption (as we would assume of any president) that he would do his best to correct these problems.

So, does he do his best to get spending and borrowing under control? Does he do his best to get the economy running at ‘full steam?’ Does he understand and accept that there is an immutable link between a healthy economy and low unemployment? The answer is NO on all counts.

So what does America’s Great Hope do? He plays politics and continues the mindset of his former civilian role as an Alinsky-trained Community Organizer. He dropped lots of hints when he was running for the office but no one chose to see past their hard feelings for the Bush administration. What the gullible public did not understand when they elected him is that he detests America as it is, has no respect for the Constitution and wants government to control of every important aspect of American’s lives.

Granted, that’s a hefty accusation but look at his actions and judge for yourselves:

In the face of near economic disaster, this new president’s initial focus is on revamping the best medical care system the world has ever seen, a system that refuses medical care to no one; revamping it until it is so complex that not even doctors fully understand what they can and can’t do without running afoul of the over 50 thousand pages of new rules that were put in place to control them and the medical insurance companies. It’s a plan to cripple the system and it is working. It’s a plan to increase government spending and control, not reduce it; it’s done that as well!

Then, rather than trying to help business, this new president attempts to put new taxes on business in the form of a carbon tax — something that not even the visionary Ayn Rand had considered as a ploy for her fictional, failing American government.

He then raises income taxes specifically on the “rich” as if he doesn’t understand even the most basic principles of the American economy. Perhaps he doesn’t, or more likely, he doesn’t want to. His approach to the economy is not only eerily similar to Marx’s, it is identical: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

The president KNOWS his history, he knows that Marxism, Communism and Socialism are all failed systems of government and that is why he is following Marx’s path to failure, with an evil twist: he wants our free market system to fail so the government (not the common worker) can, eventually, gain control of the “means of production.” That is obviously a long-range plan but if he starts the ‘ball rolling’ and sets the right precedents, future liberals can grab that ball and start running with it making him the founder of a new system of government: “Obamaism.”

Droning On: The answer to Rand Paul’s Question is a Qualified YES!

Rand Paul provided a valuable service to the American Public by filibustering on the issue of the Constitutionality of using drones against American citizens on American soil. To my mind, this is a non-issue but Paul’s filibuster at least started the national conversation and went a long way toward pinning the White House down to a specific answer.

Logically the answer is YES, the use of a drone against a terrorist, American citizen or not, is perfectly appropriate under the right circumstances.

Circumstances?

A drone strike is simply a high-tech version of deadly force. Every day law enforcement is forced to use deadly force against criminals and if there ever was a criminal who needed to die it is the terrorist who would think nothing of using deadly force against innocent civilians (which is the core definition of “terrorist”).

Because a drone has much more potential of creating collateral damage than say a SWAT team, Drone operations should be used only in areas where the possibility of collateral damage is minimal to non-existent; just as it is with SWAT teams who are always cautious of even taking a shot with a conventional weapon if there exists even a minimal chance of other people being hurt or killed.

Just because the hypothetical terrorist in Paul’s filibuster is an American citizen there is NO reason to suppose that there was a lack of a thorough investigation and close surveillance of the subject. Most of us may have lost all confidence in the Federal Government for one reason or another but there is no valid reason to believe the conspiracy theories that assume that the Federal government will authorize a “HIT” on an innocent citizen or that a SWAT team or a drone will be called in to execute a person for no valid legal reason.

A final thought, if the hypothetical American terrorist in question is actually working with a regime that is a declared (or self-declared) enemy of the United States, he or she has in fact renounced his or her American citizenship and may be found guilty of Treason by “adhering to an enemy of the United States by offering that enemy aid and comfort.” (That is part of the legal definition of Treason.)

Reference:

The New American: “Treason, Defined and Enforced”

Legal Dictionary: “Deadly Force”