Obama Race Card GOP

Obama Suggests GOP Will Use Race To Scare Voters

Obama said, “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. . . He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? . . . That old stuff just divides us.”

Interestingly, the only ones bringing up the fact that Obama is black is, well, his campaign and his supporters.

And honestly, I don’t care what his ethnicity is. In truth, it all comes down to the issues.

Obama voted against banning partial birth abortion. I don’t care where you stand on the abortion issue. Common sense dictates that if a child is slated to be born, but is terminated before the child has a chance to pass through the birth canal, and would have survived easily outside the mother, it is straight-out murder.

He voted “No” on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. Is there any parent of a teenage girl that can tell me that that is fine with them? I doubt it.

He wishes to pull out of the war zone as quickly as possible. Granted, he is too inexperienced to realize a full pull-out is not realistically possible that quickly – the time to remove even a portion of the equipment will take a formidable amount of time. But my concern is not whether or not he is capable of pulling out of the region quickly, or incrementally. My concern is the message it sends to the enemy. Islamism will see a retreat as a weakness, and will respond with terror. What fascinates me is Obama is so urgent to meet with the leaders of the enemy, yet refuses to meet with General Petraeus.

He opposed the Patriot Act. The best way to fully understand my position, and support, for the Patriot Act is to read “Living under The Patriot Act: Educating a Society” by Paul A. Ibbetson first. Honestly, his rejection of the Patriot Act is a rejection of National Security.

He supports Universal Health Care, which has been a proven failure in Britain and Canada. And I don’t care how you try to slice it, government funded Health Care falls under government control, and such systems are failures, and have been proven to be failures over and over again. This does not mean I think the current system of private insurance here in America is wonderful, but to replace a problematic system with a system that has a larger potential for failure is not the answer to this problem.

He supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, as well as extending welfare to them. What part of illegal, and “not a citizen,” does this idiot not understand?

He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, voted No on repealing the Death Tax, and wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. So, his idea for stimulating the economy is to take even more money away from the citizens. Oh, that is rich.

And did I mention that from the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator he has logged in 143 days of experience? Would you hire a manager with only 143 days of experience if you were a business owner? And this guy, with his inexperience (and yes, he said we’d claim he’s inexperienced) wants to lead the greatest nation on Earth? I don’t care about scaring anybody – it is just a fact – he has 143 days of Federal Political experience and I don’t want a president trying to learn on the job.

And this is only a few of the issues. If you learn all about him you realize the man’s politics are more in line with Karl Marx’s than the U.S. Constitution.

But, since at the beginning of the post I brought up the fact that he claims to be the first black presidential candidate, let’s touch on that for a moment.

Senator Obama will not be the first African-American president as he claims. He will be the first Arab-American president if he is elected. The Senator’s background is: Caucasian from his mother [and] Arab-African from his father. The Kenyan Obamas are listed in the Kenyan census as Arab-African, not as Tribal ‘Black’ African. His father’s great great grandmother was a Tribal African.

Therefore by ethnic lines the Senator is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% Black African (from where the Senator gets his skin pigmentation).

The Arab press has made much of the Senator’s Arab heritage, but luckily for Senator Obama, American voters don’t read the Arab press! However, key financial backers like the Arab “Americans” Rezko and Al-Sammarae, and the Iraqi Auchi do, and the money rolls in.

In Dreams From My Father, his autobiography, Obama confessed to concealing his white heritage in his youth.

Has Obama been concealing his Arab heritage as an adult?

Fascinating how Obama mentions his “blackness” about every chance he gets, but fails to mention that he is mostly white and Arab. Who’s the one using race in the campaign, Barry? The GOP? Or you?

Mr. Obama, you are wrong about the GOP trying to scare voters by trying to point out you are black (or so you say you are), or by pointing anything else out. The GOP doesn’t have to try to scare the voters in regards to you. The facts do that on their own (or will if the biased mainstream media actually allows themselves to report the facts).

Published in: on June 30, 2008 at 6:28 am  Comments (1)  

Freedom of Religion under Fire in America

Losing Religious Freedom in America

One of the primary motives, if not “the” primary motive, for the English colonization of North America was the search for religious freedom. In England the state-run Church of England was the King’s tool for controlling the people, and failure to be a member of the Church of England resulted in punishment – for such dissension against the State Church was not tolerated. The colonists desired to live in a place where they could worship as they pleased, and the New World provided such an opportunity.

The New England Colonies were founded for both economic and religious purposes. By 1627, after seven years of hard work that included fur trading and farming the land, the colony was out of debt and self-supporting. The colonies grew rapidly, spreading their radical idea of religious freedom.

For some, however, old habits die hard. The Puritans (Calvinists) tried to create a theocracy, but found quickly that such a system interfered with the people’s desire for religious freedom. In 1634 a committee was appointed to examine the theocratic charter. A new legislature arose out of the findings of the committee, and though not fully democratic (at that point only church members were admitted to the ranks of the voters), the seeds of democracy had been planted.

During that time, while the Massachusetts government demanded membership of the Puritan Church to vote, a whole series of rebels were bred, and founded other New England colonies.

The Rhode Island Charter authorized the settlement of Rhode Island in 1644, followed later by another charter in 1663. The latter established a permanent government based on that of Massachusetts, but not requiring church membership of voters. The complete political and religious freedom attracted dissenters from all over America and Europe.

Historians agree that religion was an important force inspiring migration to the English colonies, especially to the northern colonies. Far fewer would have risked immigration had dissent to a state-run church been accepted in England. This did not mean that the colonists favored freedom of conscience. They simply wanted a place where they could worship as they pleased.

At the start, religious freedom in the colonies was as restricted as it was in England, but with the passing of time greater religious freedom was enjoyed by the colonists.

The settlement of Pennsylvania was founded in the interest of guaranteeing both religious and political freedom. The “Frame of Government” (1682) and “Charter of Privileges” (1701) decreed complete freedom of worship and a democratic government in which power was vested in a one-house elected legislature.

In the colonies eventually no one church was dominant, with each religion contributing more to the theory of religious freedom. Due to fears of governmental control of any one church, a system of voluntarism was developed, through which churches were supported by voluntary contributions, rather than taxes as was the standard in many European countries.

Though some of the religions remained skeptical of religious freedom, such as the Puritans who banned non-church members from voting at first, banished and persecuted Baptists and Quakers, and persecuted people they deemed as witches (through an inaccurate interpretation of scripture), the desire for complete religious freedom eventually impacted all of the citizens of the colonies, and the fundamental basics of the idea of freedom of religion took hold.

The evolution of liberty is intertwined with the pursuit of religious freedom. The non-Biblical actions of churches, like the Puritan Calvinists, enabled other churches to prosper, which led to a revival of evangelism in the 1720’s. This revival strengthened more Biblically grounded churches like the Baptists, giving the common people more control over the churches, and more religious freedom as originally intended.

By the eve of the American Revolution, the colonists had determined that democracy was the best means of government (though later the founding fathers agreed upon a representative republic instead), and supported the emphasis on individualism where limitless opportunity made men less dependent on the social group, as well as less dependent upon any centralized government control. This, in turn, encouraged a belief that no distant parliament could solve their problems, and that their prosperity lay in trading outside the empire. No ruler, they realized, should be able to interfere with their progress or their political freedom. Self-rule was the only answer, and by then the colonists were convinced that King George III was denying them their God-given rights.

Understanding the drive for independence and religious freedom, it is easy to see that the founding fathers did not want the government telling the church in any way, shape, or form how to worship, nor did they want the government dictating to the church what they could or could not do in relation to church business.

Around the world, and even around America, speaking out about the Christian teachings regarding homosexuality can result in a criminal crackdown against you. And though currently the law is not “requiring” churches to marry gay couples if it is against their doctrine, the fear among pastors is that this will change, and hate-crime laws will be used to persecute any clergy that refuse to perform a ceremony for a gay couple on the grounds that it is against the teachings of the Bible.

Don’t forget about the New Mexico family owned photography studio who was fined more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony.

Answer me this: After I have illustrated the struggles our founding fathers went through to ensure we have religious freedoms, and where the state does not dictate to us how we worship or conduct our religious affairs, why is it that the state can dictate that a photography studio must pay a fine for not taking pictures because it is against their religion? And is the government dictating to pastors that they must conduct gay marriage ceremonies whether they like it or not on the horizon?

Published in: on June 29, 2008 at 6:55 am  Leave a Comment  

Playing With The Enemy

Playing With The Enemy – Gary W. Moore and Toby Moore on Fox Sports

Those of you that are long time readers and listeners of Political Pistachio know Gary W. Moore, the author of “Playing With The Enemy.” He has been on Political Pistachio Radio four times, and some of my listeners have won signed copies of the first edition of Playing With The Enemy on my show. A movie based on the book is currently filming, and should be released during the first quarter of 2009.

The book is about Gary’s father, a baseball phenom caught up in World War II, and eventually tasked with guarding German U-boat prisoners of war. During that time of guard duty, the Americans teach the Germans the American game of baseball. The story is about shattered dreams, and finding what the meaning of life truly is.

Gary W. Moore, and his son, Toby Moore (who will be playing the lead role in the upcoming major motion picture based on the book) will be on The Best Damn Sports Show, Period on the Fox Sports Network on Friday, June 27.

On the show Gary will discuss the book and movie.

Check it out on the Fox Sports Network at 11:00 PM in most markets.

Oh, and if you want to listen to my past interviews of Gary on my radio show, the links are below:

April 7, 2007

June 16, 2007

January 26, 2008

May 22, 2008

Published in: on June 27, 2008 at 6:16 am  Leave a Comment  

Washington D.C. Gun Ban Ruling by The U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court and the Washington D.C. Gun Ban

Today a ruling by The U.S. Supreme Court was expected regarding whether the Washington D.C. handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. However, that long-awaited ruling was not released – so this potentially landmark decision will most certainly come tomorrow morning when the court is planning to issue the last of its rulings for the term.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, is the center of the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

The Washington Post has reported that Mayor Adrain M. Fenty is planning to hold a news conference at the John A. Wilson Building after the decision is announced.


Also, I will discuss this ruling, the implications of the ruling, and the Constitutional Amendment that grants our right to bear arms on Political Pistachio Radio on Thursday Night – see you there!

Published in: on June 26, 2008 at 5:42 am  Leave a Comment  

From Crayons to Condoms

Johnny Can’t Read, or Do Math

The classroom in American public schools has become a place for children to confront all varieties of adult behaviors and depressing situations. Rather than acquire basic knowledge of history, literature, math, and science, more and more classroom time is being spent discussing feelings, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Instead of a place of learning, those that run our public schools seem to think that the fundamental task of education is therapy.

Our children are being psychologically molested in the classroom through exercises that focus on death, suicide, graphic sex, and invasive surveys. Some public schools are now even forcing children to participate in Islamic religious practices that are not only in direct opposition to many children’s families’ personal beliefs, but is hardly in keeping with the idea of seperation of church and state that the system is using in order to keep Christian prayer out of schools.

Today’s educational system emphasizes the “Proper Socialization” of our children by integrating “politically correct” attitudes and values into watered down academics which accommodates social agendas, but fails to teach our children.

The social engineering experiments being tried on our children is a failure – but the public school system won’t admit such. Instead of admitting failure and returning to the basics of education, the education establishment would rather blame our underachieving schools on inadequate funding, though there is no correlation between performance and funding. In fact, solid academics costs less than the experimental methodologies being imposed on our children.

Our children, and the school system, is performing poorly because the focus is no longer on academic achievement. Instead of teaching phonics, they teach “whole language.” Rather than teach our children how to sound out a word, they teach inventive spelling. Rather than teaching our children how to calculate and reason, they teach constructivist math. Rather than allowing the children to learn from their mistakes, they push self-esteem programs and death education.

Why do they do this, despite the objections of parents around the nation? The common view among educators is that public schools exist to shape our children emotionally and psychologically in the proper politically correct image, rather than teach our children academics. Public schools are inundated with social studies curricula containing false and misleading concepts, and sex education programs whose main purpose is to challenge societal norms.

Even Bush’s precious “No Child Left Behind” program is a dismal failure. Politicians seem to be constantly calling for federal education programs, never recognizing that a centralized approach to education is a failed approach.

Parents are feeling as if they, as taxpayers, are no longer in charge of our public schools, or of their own children. In fact, often the school boards impose policies and practices irrespective of parental protests.

Rob Reiner, like Hillary Clinton, has even pushed for a mandatory pre-school program because even parents with good instincts can miss it when it comes to child development. Barack Obama has suggested sex education as early as kindergarten.

Though we hear a call for more parental involvement from society, in truth unless parents climb on board with the agenda pushed by the education establishment, the parents are not wanted, are seen as troublemakers, and are seen as parents who dare challenge those in “authority.”

In 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields v. Palmdale School District that the fundamental right of parents over the care and upbringing of their children “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door,” and a public school as the right to give students “whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise.”

The message being sent out is that those who run the schools are the experts, and parents shouldn’t interfere.

If that is the case, then why is it that children who are homeschooled by their parents, and those children attending private schools (including Christian Private Schools) score higher on academic testing on average than those educated by the public school system? And why is it, despite those numbers, is there a movement by the liberal left to outlaw homeschooling?

The book, “From Crayons to Condoms” is a compilation of stories by concerned parents that found themselves caught in the middle of this battle. The book was edited and compiled by Steve Baldwin and Karen Holgate. Karen Holgate will be my guest on Wednesday Night on Political Pistachio Radio – Tune in, and find out the ugly truth about America’s Public Schools!

Published in: on June 25, 2008 at 5:30 am  Leave a Comment  

Mindless Automatons

Generation: Mindless Automatons

Visit any mall in America and you will see hordes of teenagers with earphones shoved in their ears listening to their I-Pods and MP3 players.

And as they listen to their devices, becoming more engrossed in the music, they have become less in tune with what is around them. America has been dumbed down, populated by mindless automatons in a world gone mad. They have been desensitized. They have been numbed to the point that they really don’t care anymore about what is going on around them, and are willing to fully accept the madness without as much as a whimper.

Now, before the liberal left gets their collective panties in a bunch, let me explain that I am not being a bitter, Bible thumping, gun-toting nutcase clinging to hundred year old music while calling rock and roll, or whatever else the kids are listening to, Satan’s music. I am not advocating banning today’s technology, nor do I think that the indoctrination of our children through the public schools, MTV, and the music industry only the fault of music executives and Paris Hilton. After all, though the dumbing down of our children through earphones shoved in their ears, and video games attached to their hands, is a serious factor in the demoralization of society, the fault lies in many places, and in the end, the majority of the blame rests on the parents for abdicating their roles, and handing it over willfully to a worldview that is tasked with removing parental influence as a whole.

In other words, IPods are not the sole cause of our societal woes, and our demise is not due to the music industry – but they sure aren’t helping.

The American preoccupation with these devices, the music they listen to through them, whether or not Britney Spears is abusing her kids, or whether or not she is wearing any panties, is a part of a disturbing tendency by Americans to reject being informed, nor to take seriously the threats all around us.

They distract us from what is really important, and the latest generation has concluded that nothing else really seems to matter.

The politically correct worldview seems to think that if the Islamists were just given I-Pods and the American tendency to be mindless zombies who don’t even recognize when their fundamental freedoms are being eroded, they’d want to dance in the multicultural daisies of diversity too.

Fact is, and I wish to be as clear as I can be on this, the followers of Islam, the Jihadists that are following the teachings of the barbaric pedophile Muhammad, want to kill you, or convert you if you are willing. The Gays that complain that Christians are so oppressive against homosexuality because we are willing to call their conduct a sin will be hanging from trees with ropes around their necks should Islam complete its goal of domination over America. The Liberal feminists will be wearing burkas, every last one of them shrouded in head scarves. All freedoms and rights so rightfully earned will be gone, should the Jihad accomplish its Koran blessed agenda.

But go on, keep listening to your I-Pods and MP3 players. Surely, the Jihad will not return to America and affect you. Surely, you are safe from them. Why would Islam wish to mess with you?

Published in: on June 24, 2008 at 5:00 am  Leave a Comment  


The Power of Fear, and the Return of Political Pistachio

As a child I grew up fearing discipline from my dad. That fear of paying the consequences of my actions kept me on the right path, and trained me to be a good person.

In 1985 I was in an automobile accident that nearly killed me – one that left me in a comatose condition for a long time – one that I should not have survived. Fearing another possibility of such an episode in my life, I have been a loyal wearer of seatbelts ever since. I chose to wear a seatbelt because of my life experiences, which filled me with fear when I encountered that storm of life.

Having humble beginnings, I have worked very hard in my life for fear that I may be someday poor again should I not work so hard. I have found success, and continue to maintain that success out of fear of living in poverty again someday.

Once, when I was conducting fielding practice for my baseball team I knocked a ball out of the air with the baseball bat I was holding, and the ball ricocheted off the bat and into my eye, knocking me out cold for a moment. Out of fear of that happening again, I don’t knock balls out of the air with my bat anymore.

Fear of separation from God led me to Him, and the acceptance of Christ as my savior.

Fear, like most things in life, can have a positive impact in our lives. We learn from fear. We grow because of fear. We strive because of fear.

But, like many other things in life that can have positive affects on our lives, fear can be wielded like a sword, and used to cause harm, and even control the actions of people.

Hitler used fear to control his nation and wage war against the world. Stalin used fear to control his people, and keep them in line. Many agendas in today’s society uses fear to herd the people into a corner, forcing them to bow down and give concessions to the agenda.

I normally don’t scare easy.

Something I have learned over the many years of my life, though it took a long while to pound it into my thick skull, is that there are people out there willing to use scare tactics to get their point across. I receive hate e-mail (ironically calling me a “hater,” no less) constantly. These radical members of the liberal left call me every name in the book, and a few names that have yet to grace its pages. I am crucified by these people for being a follower of Jesus Christ, for calling homosexuality a perversion, and for declaring Islam to be a political ideology (rather than religion) of hate and violence.

Certain members of the liberal left have made it plain and clear that they do not like the fact that I say what I think, have an optimistic view of America should we choose to move in the direction set forth by our fore-fathers, and call it as I see it when it comes to the Democratic Party’s Marxist Agenda.

I realize that individual idiots do not always represent a whole group. Nonetheless, notes delivered to my doorstep referencing my blog and radio show with threatening messages toward me and my wife, broken windows, black markers applied to my conservative and Christian bumper stickers, prank calls (on my show and at home) recommending I receive gay activities up my south end, and comments that I am guilty of “hate crimes,” are only coming from the left side of the political spectrum. And if you go to You Tube and enter Political Pistachio in the search window, below the top video (which is X-Dhimmi Deb’s fantastic video of my position on the Second Amendment) is a whole line of Muslim Videos (with Political Pistachio Radio in the description).

It is fair to say I have made my share of political enemies.

But when threats are hand delivered to my home, it makes me a little skittish.

The authorities claim that the attack is nothing more than a prank, or a minor case of harassment.

Looking back on the situation, if I made any mistakes, it was shutting everything down like I did. I allowed those that wish to silence me to do exactly that. They got to me. They got my goat, as my dad would say. They pushed my buttons, and filled me with fear. Not fear for myself, but fear for the safety of those that I love.

The power of fear was used against me, hoping to silence me.

Mrs. Pistachio, my lovely wife, told me to practice what I preach, rather than be silenced at the first sign of a threat. “They want to scare you into silence,” she said. “They wish to bully you into submission.”

Now, patrols have increased in my neighborhood, the security system has been updated, and a surveillance system has been ordered.

And Political Pistachio has returned – with a fire burning hotter than before.

Rather than be silenced, I have been reminded the reason that I blog and host my radio show.

Thank you, anonymous attacker, whoever you are, for reminding me that the world is full of idiots like you.

Published in: on June 23, 2008 at 5:59 am  Comments (1)  

Gay Marriage in California – the Homosexual Agenda

Gay Marriage In California – Validating the Dark Ages

Gay marriage has begun in California. Homosexuals are flocking here from around the country to be wed. This troubles me greatly.

In a conversation on my radio show a couple weeks ago one of my listeners called in when I was discussing Homosexuality and says to me, “I know a lot of gay people, and they are actually nice people.”

I have never pulled out such a broad stroke brush and said, “Gays are not nice,” or that I “Hate Gays.” But see, that is how the agenda functions. If you say that you believe homosexuality is a sin, or not normal, or that the homosexual agenda is a dangerous political engine, you are automatically stamped on the forehead as someone who “hates” gays, a person who thinks all gay people are mean, a homo-phobe, and whatever other label they desire to slap on you.

Is homosexuality normal behavior? Is it conduct that should be allowed to be given validation in our society? Should we bend and sway to the homosexual agenda’s every wish?

Validation through marriage, personal respect from the “state,” seems to be the drive at the moment.

Honestly, I don’t care what homosexuals do behind closed doors. And though I think it is a compromise that places our society in a dangerous position, I am even willing to give them “Civil Unions” for the legal perks of marriage – from a “legal” point of view, I don’t think we as a society have any choice but to give them at least “Civil Unions” because of the question, “Shouldn’t anyone who is in love and willing to commit have the full rights awarded married couples (i.e. insurance, joint ownership, etc.)?”

But the homosexual agenda is not satisfied with Civil Unions. To justify their abnormal conduct, they seem to feel that sticking a knife in the heart of Christianity is the best way to gain respect.

Do they think that just because the “state” has decided that gay marriage is valid that suddenly that gains them personal respect and now they must be respected across the board?

Respect is not something that can be mandated or required or legislated. It is something earned. In fact, this agenda driven march to lessen the religious significance of marriage will earn the homosexual community disrespect. Why? They are trying to gain an unfair advantage, or preferential treatment, through using the Supreme Court by insisting the courts impose their will on the majority of the people, specifically, in this case, the people in California who voted down gay marriage.

If a group imposes its will upon another group, resentment is fostered in the group that is being imposed upon. Imposition such as this garners bad feelings, and the result will be that people who feel marriage is a Christian Institution and shouldn’t be used in a manner that is in opposition to God’s Teachings will rise up and respond.

I don’t respect or accept as a form of justification of their lifestyle the invasion of marriage by the Gay Agenda. I resent it. As a Christian parent, if my children were younger, I would now have to be explaining to my children, who’s innocence has been lost by this public display of sexual immorality, what homosexuality is, and why a bunch of people who are, in my opinion, in opposition of Biblical Scripture, are being given preferential treatment and are being allowed to essentially tell me that the Christian Institution of Marriage is not Christian, and can be stomped on by anyone who wants to shuffle their feet across it.

Not that we have been good stewards of marriage ourselves. The divorce rate is through the roof, the percentage of married people that commit adultery is at astronomically high numbers, and a large portion of the people driving up the rate of divorce and adultery claim to be of the Christian Faith.

The astonishing failure rate of marriage is at about 50%. “Till Death Do Us Part” seems to lost its importance. I understand that good marriages don’t just happen, they require attention, thought, and serious effort. In this society, where everything must be fast, and warning labels must advise of all possible pitfalls (including that the coffee is probably hot and can burn your lap), marriage has become an easy thing to just throw away and is being regarded as just something to do, not a committment or contract entered into in the presence of God.

So if we have screwed up marriage so much, why aren’t conservatives and Christians just willing to allow the gays to have a stab at it? Heck, they can’t mess it up much more than we have in the sense of the importance of a lifelong marriage.

This is where people get confused about the defense of Christian marriage. It isn’t just a simple matter of “Homosexual conduct is a sin, so you can’t have marriage.”

In fact, to help illustrate this, a friend of mine put it quite well on one of my Political Pistachio Radio Show.

Josh Allem said, “What business is it of ours if two consenting adults want to believe that three plus three equals forty? It’s none of my business, and it doesn’t hurt me whatsoever what they believe and what they do. If they want to build their house using that twisted math, it doesn’t hurt me. But when they start teaching it in the text books at the schools that I might send my kids to that 3+3=40, I’m gonna have a problem with it. When a liberal, or whoever, comes to me and says homosexuality is normal, I’m going to say it isn’t. It doesn’t matter who’s saying it, and comparing it to being a member of a race is an insult to race. To think that comparing it to race, to compare that to a lifestyle, if I was black, that would piss me off to no end.”

Honestly, I really don’t care if gays want to be gay – that is between them and God. Homosexuals are free to be gay. You will receive no argument from me. I would have a big problem if the Thought Police was breaking into bedrooms and hauling people off for having unapproved relations. It is a free country, and if they wish to do the things they do, that is their business. But when does freedom become oppression? When does ones freedom become detrimental to a free society, and the freedoms of others?

When I have to be careful of what I say. . . in other words, if by verbalizing my own religious and political opinion it puts me at risk of being slammed for being a bigot, or found guilty of a hate crime because I dare call a spade a spade, or in this case, dare call a perversion a perversion, something is seriously wrong in America.

In an orderly, natural world, be it one that has evolved from the primordial goo of the Earth’s scientific beginnings, or one that sprang from the intelligent design of a loving God, is hardly a world that in the natural order of things would recognize homosexuality as a normal behavior.

I have argued with people that even though I am a Creationist, I recognize that certain aspects of evolution is true. And if certain aspects of natural selection is true, then only those individuals who are able to reproduce will contribute offspring to the next generation. That being the case, homosexuals, who do not produce offspring, should not be able to pass their genes on to the next generation (if you were to consider that the behavior was somehow influenced by genetics). This being the case, once again considering that there may be some genetic or biological reason for homosexuality, evolution should have removed it a long time ago.

The main question, of course, that pops up, is, regardless of genetic influence, is homosexuality simply a chosen human behavior?

Choice. Is homosexuality a choice of perversion. From a Biblical standpoint, the answer is, “Yes.”

But is it a biological behavior that is chosen?

I don’t believe someone wakes up one morning and says to themselves, “Hey, I think I would rather be gay.” Some use the example of alcoholism to explain the choice. One does not choose to be an alcoholic necessarily, because the sickness is a damaging lifestyle that destroys relationships, and one’s self, be it medically, mentally, or emotionally. But, the alcoholic may choose not to drink, and choose not to pursue the downward spiral into the self-destruction of alcoholism. So though they don’t consciously wake up one morning and choose to be an alcoholic, the behavior is chosen when you take a look at the grand scheme.

When it comes to homosexuality, though, the question is mired by the fact that there are some other species which share the tendency (though in small percentages, and the conduct of nature doesn’t necessarily make the animal in question “gay”) to practice homosexual conduct. In fact, science claims there are close to 500 known species that have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, many of which are mammals, though the behavior can be present in birds, fish, reptiles, and even insects. Just because my male dog jumps on the other male dog and tries to hump it doesn’t automatically make the dog gay and validate homosexuality. It’s an animal, for God’s sake. When a dog tries to hump a leg, do you automatically believe the dog is in love with legs, and has a genetic mechanism making it find legs preferential over other dogs?

And of course there is the argument that homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of time. Even Biblical text says so. However, homosexuality is not really all that common, be it in nature, or throughout history, though its presence in unmistakable.

Murder has been around since the beginning of time, too, and that doesn’t make it normal, or acceptable.

Now, remember that the aspects of evolution that promotes changes in species (though I believe those changes are much more subtle than the Darwinists will claim, takes place in populations, not individuals? Well, consider the social benefits of a population in which the members of the society shares the close bonds of a sexual relationship as couples, and reproduce as a result. A stable society of heterosexual tenants is much more likely to promote successful reproduction of young. Thus, homosexuality would not be an evolutionarily beneficial behavior.

And finally, biologically, homosexuality is not normal. The body parts don’t match, and in the male form of homosexuality, the medical consequences are great, including AIDS.

So, to complete the cycle, marriage is, and has always been, designed for a man and a woman.

But the ultimate question is why. Why do gays feel the need to be married? Why isn’t the comparable legal benefits of Civil Unions not adequate? Why do they see the need for some kind of legal validation and justification of their actions?

Christianity is the faith of the one and only true God, and His condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle will always leave with gays the stigma that their lifestyle is a perversion. To validate their perversion, they need to eliminate the source of the opposition. The source is Christianity, and one of the most revered institutions of Christianity is marriage – therefore, Marriage, according to homosexuals, must be stripped down to a secular activity, one with no Christian influence. Tradition must be destroyed, and the Christian nature of morality must be eliminated.

And now, as the homosexual agenda advances, the attacks on the Church are on the rise. Is that any surprise?

World Net Daily – – – A new Colorado law is helping homosexual activists achieve their goal of forcing Christians to teach biblical condemnation of homosexuality only behind the closed doors of their sanctuaries.

OneNewsNow – — – The two openly homosexual members of the U.S. House of Representatives have recruited 50 of their colleagues to officially join them in promoting the homosexual agenda in Congress.

One News One – Homosexual activists are trying to stop the residents of one Maryland county from voting on a controversial “gender identity” bill.

Decoding the California Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision – – – The court ruled that sexual orientation was a “suspect classification,” a term typically used by the U.S. Supreme Court to refer to historic bases for discrimination, such as race or national origin. By labeling sexual orientation “suspect,” the California court indicated that any law based on sexual orientation would be presumed discriminatory.

I don’t validate what gays do, and they should not be forcing the majority to do so through activist judges and unsavory political actions. Regardless of the moral implications, a group insisting on preferential treatment, and the ability to bastardize another group’s most sacred instituions, is wrong, and not good for a civilized society.

Listen to my verbal reading of this post, and the callers responses to it on Political Pistachio Radio.

Published in: on June 18, 2008 at 3:38 am  Comments (6)  

T.D. Jakes near-endorses Obama

Mega Church Pastor T.D. Jakes “Got Goose Bumps” watching Barack Obama’s Nomination Acceptance Speech!

A growing number of Christian organizations are speaking out against T.D. Jake’s near-endorsement of Obama.

Interesting that Pastor Jakes failed to mention to his congregation Obama’s support for abortion, or his support for record-breaking tax hikes.

Dr. O’Neal Dozier is an ex-football professional football player (Chicago Bears), lawyer, PhD, and pastor, and he is reminding Americans to not get caught up in the style or persuasiveness of candidates, but rather to examine their fruit and where they stand regarding traditional Judeo-Christian issues, upon which this nation was founded.

Rev. Dozier has said that, “The scripture warns that Christians not be deceived by fine sounding words by false teachers. Obama’s rhetoric is lofty, but his positions are hellish, his speeches are inspiring, but his voting record is infernal. Obama supports abortion, homosexuality, and restrictions of religious liberty.”

Dr. O’Neal Dozier is also a patriotic American that served two consecutive terms in the U.S. Military. Today, he is a nationally known black conservative that has even been invited to The White House to pray with President Bush.

Tonight, Dr. O’Neal Dozier is my guest on Political Pistachio at 10:00 pm Eastern Time. Catch the live show, or the archive later, on Political Pistachio Radio @ www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio.

Published in: on June 17, 2008 at 1:19 am  Comments (2)  

Father’s Day 2008

The Father He Didn’t Have To Be

When I was still a baby my parents divorced. My biological father maintained a lifestyle not appropriate for raising a child, and he knew it. His choice of a gay lifestyle was one of the many reasons that by the time I was twelve, he had disappeared from my life, only to return when I was well into my twenties, and beyond the age of being impressionable.

My future step-dad, a wartime U.S. Marine, and fresh home from Vietnam, babysat me when my mom dated his friend. Later, he and my mom fell in love, and he accepted the entire package, mother and son, as his own.

The Vietnam Veteran has always been “Dad.” I was nearly three when he married my mother, and he never treated me any different than he would have if I had been his flesh and blood son. But, though he treated me as his son, he respected my father, conversing with the man when he picked me up once per year, and Dad always encouraged me to keep my father’s last name and stay connected with my family.

My dad led by example, and disciplined with a controlled hand and a loving heart. He worked hard to take care of the family, at one point working two jobs (one from 2:00 am to 6:00 am, then the other fulltime during the day) and going to school at night. My biological father was fairly wealthy, coming from a family with money, but my dad never asked them for assistance, nor did he demand that my father pay the child support he never seemed will to pay anyway.

Dad taught me to throw, to catch, and to swing a bat when I was nine years old. When I played baseball it was mom who was usually at the games, because Dad had to work, but he came to the games when he could.

He treated me so much like his own flesh-and-blood-son that when we were together in public and around extended family, even people that knew he was my step-dad would forget, and say things like, “You apparently got that trait from your dad.” Even Grandma made that mistake occasionally. Nobody ever said anything to challenge it. As far as everyone was concerned, he was my dad.

When I became a father, I tried to model my actions after dad’s, but as Brad Paisley’s song goes, I was just hoping I could be even half the dad he didn’t have to be.

My biological father essentially rejected his grandchildren, telling me he didn’t like kids. I don’t blame him, he was not equipped for such a role due to his childhood, and his lifestyle. My dad, however, fell in love with my children, proud to be a grandfather.

When I nearly died in 1985, and Dad saw me lying in intensive care, my chest mechanically rising and falling under the support of a respirator, and my head flowing blood and spinal fluid through the left ear, the man who was strong, hardened by war, and unemotional when all else was falling apart around him, felt cold and clammy from the terror of seeing his son struggling for life. He went to a sink in a nearby bathroom and washed his tears away, praying for my survival. I wasn’t his stepson, in his eyes, I was his “son,” his precious son, fighting to survive.

He has hugged me when I needed a hug, and given me advice when I was up against the wall. He has done everything a Father is expected to do, and a little more, and he did it voluntarily – after all, being my step-dad, he didn’t have to be a loving father if he didn’t want to be.

Last Friday, my daughter graduated from high school, and my son was home with his wife caring for her after her surgery. As a result, my wife and I have had our grandson, Ezekiel, with us for four days. After my daughter’s graduation, we all met for dinner in town. My dad rode in with my sister and her husband and children, unable to attend the actual graduation because of work. When he saw us arrive at the restaurant holding his great-grandson, his eyes lit up, and a loving smile spread across his face.

I have always called him Dad, and my biological parent Father so that I could maintain a distinction – but Dad is not only a dad. He is a Father, my Father, the Father he didn’t have to be.

Happy Father’s Day, Dad. I love you with all of my heart. You have made me the man I have become, and I thank you for it.

And Happy Father’s Day to my biological father who died in 1999, God Rest His Soul.


Brad Paisley – He Didn’t Have To Be

Published in: on June 15, 2008 at 8:54 pm  Leave a Comment