Boy Scouts may be better off without Southern Baptists


Blind Faith

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.


You’re the Editor! It’s Romney vs. Obama vs. the Media


I’ve been around through many presidential election cycles but if there was one with more deceit, innuendo and outright misinformation from the media, I don’t remember it.

Last week a video came out showing Romney explaining his campaign strategy to people who support him and want to contribute to his presidential campaign. When speaking to a group like that on a topic like that, in a “private” meeting, you ‘paint with a broad brush;’ there is no need to get into the minutia, no need to ‘weasel word’ everything you say — these are friends and supporters and what they want to know is if you have a logical, potentially winning strategy. That’s what Romney was delivering to this audience — not knowing that the far-Left Mother Jones Magazine had a spy there with a video camera.

Then, at a point where they figured it would be most advantageous to their far-Left candidate, Barack Obama, Mother Jones released a one-sided story, filled with accusations and innuendo that supported their version of what was going on in Romney’s meeting and extrapolated on their theory that only Obama cares about the lower and middle income people in this country.

The above is just an isolated example of how the media uses it’s elevated position to misinform it’s audience.

Don’t assume that the news you get from the far-Right is any more accurate!

If you are reading a blog or a commentary or an editorial you expect the story to reflect the views and positions of it’s author. Fair enough! But if you are reading a news article that contains more than the known details of a story you know you’re being used!

Mitt Romney and the Republican party have much more than the president to beat in November and Barack Obama and the Democrats have more than Mitt Romney alone to beat! They both have to beat misinformation from the main-stream media (mostly Left), the Network News outlets (mostly Left), the cable news outlets and numerous radio talk shows (mostly Right). Some of these news sources are reliable but others are simply blogs and commentaries of a “different color.” Use your common sense and logic! “Edit” out the non-facts as you read or listen.

The message here is obvious but let me repeat: THINK FOR YOURSELF! Don’t believe any news story (from the Left OR Right) that presents only one side of a story — responsible journalism (an entity that is almost dead) will give you straight news without assumptions, forecasts, rumors or commentary — if it gives you more, you are the editor.

On a personal note (this is a blog after all): My vote will be more against Obama than it will be for Romney. I feel very deeply that Obama’s re-election would be disasterous for our country and the American people. (OK! Now that you’ve got my ‘opinion’ you can edit it out!)

Lybia and Egypt: Too Many Questions!


We’ve heard of two ‘acts of war’ against the U.S. on 9/11/12. We’ve heard of 4 Americans dieing in those raids on those two U.S. Consulates in Lybia and Egypt — both sovereign pieces of U.S. territory.

We know that U.S embassies and consulates are defended by U.S. Marine emplacements. We know that our U.S. Marines are one of the finest, best trained, deadliest fighting forces in the world.


Did even one terrorist die in those attacks by radical Islam?

Are we intentionally not being told about the Muslim body count or were there no enemy casualties?

If not, why?

Could it be that the Obama administration knew that these attacks were going to occur?

Could it be that, because of the obvious cowardice that is deeply embedded in the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, we actually ALLOWED these attacks to occur?

Would a sitting American President allow U.S. territory to be invaded and allow the U.S. Flag to be desecrated?

Were the U.S. Marines told to stand down so this could happen?

Far too many questions and they all condemn the Obama Administration — and they all stink of treason!

Most damning of all: The Obama administration’s first response to Islamic Terrorists who invaded U.S. Territory and desecrated the American flag is an apology!

Fareed Zakaria Suspended — “Gone, and a cloud in my heart”


Time Magazine suspended Fareed Zakaria today due to plagiarism that was uncovered by NewsBusters, a Conservative organization dedicated to finding and exposing Liberal Bias in the media.

Newsbuster’s discovery of a plagiarized paragraph in Zacharia’s Time Magazine article “The Case for Gun Control,” in truth, was a case of finding an exposing a Liberal journalist; it not had little to do with Liberal Media bias but we must admit that gun control and Liberalism are intrinsically linked.

That said, the evidence is clear and Zakaria freely admitted, that the paragraph in question was almost a direct take from Jill Lepore’s New Yorker Magazine article, “Battleground America.”

Not only has Time Magazine suspended Zakaria but CNN, where Zakaria hosted (note the past tense) his own show: Fareed Zakaria GPS, also set Zakaria adrift because he had written similar articles for the CNN Blog.

Fareed Rafiq Zakaria, born in India, is a recognized Left-leaning expert on America’s foreign policy, has been a foreign policy research director at Harvard and is highly-acclaimed as a contributor, journalist, editor and managing editor on a great many magazines. His knowledge of the subject of foreign affairs did not, however, make him an expert on gun control — with Zakaria, it was just a matter of using his writing credentials to sell his biased opinion.

Zakaria stated today: that this incident was caused by “a serious lapse (in judgment) and one that is entirely my fault.” He went on to say: “I apologize unreservedly to [Jill Lepore], to my editors at Time, and to my readers.”

In closing, he perhaps also should have plagiarized from Alfred Lord Tennyson:

“Gone – flitted away,

Taken the stars from the night and the sun

From the day!

Gone, and a cloud in my heart.


Associated Press: Zakaria suspended for copying other writer’s work

Gays in Scouting


The announcement by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) that they will not change their policy of rejecting openly gay people from membership or participation in scout troops created a mini-furor on radio talk shows. Since the majority of talk shows are anchored by Conservative hosts (to be more accurate I should say Christian-Conservative hosts) the BSA’s announcement was met with wholesale approval by the hosts but received the scorn of many callers.

Though not gay myself, I have been, for personal reasons, an outspoken supporter of gay rights; but the storm being stirred up by radical gay activists against the BSA bothers me. In fact radical activists for any cause bother me — they tend to insist on being given rights but care not at all for anyone else’s rights (not even getting into the debate over what is an actual “right” and what is just a demand).

The BSA is a private organization that can legally refuse membership to anyone it wants for whatever reason it wants (affirmed 12 years ago by the Supreme Court). By taking an anti-gay stance and then reinforcing it with a public statement, the BSA is opening itself up to scorn from those who disagree with their policy. They know that and don’t care!

It is certainly a Constitutional right for gays to, within legal limits, try to force themselves and their beliefs on anti-gay people and organizations but we must bare in mind that those doing the forcing are always the radical activists and in any group of people, the radical activists are generally 10% or less of the whole; an unfortunate after-effect however is that the entire group takes the heat from the controversy stirred up by the 10%.

I would assume that the majority of gays, having been spat on, cursed and bullied since “coming out as gay” are more than tired of rejection and would most likely not want to associate themselves with Christian bigots and other mean-spirited, closed minded individuals. Life is hard enough without subjecting yourself to associations with social retards.

On one of the radio talk shows I listened to during the boy scout controversy (the Chris Krok show), an old man called in and, after a lengthy condemnation of the push to allow gays in scouting, he concluded by saying “I don’t know why they just can’t wait until they’re 17 or 18 years old and then decide if they want to be gay or not!” The host said nothing in response! I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry!


Christian Science Monitor: Ousted lesbian Boy Scout leader delivers petition

A Question of Patriotism


It seems that the Obama Administration has a stranglehold on the entire Democratic party.

Before Obama came into office, Democrats were enemies of anything that Republicans saw as as a good idea — that’s normal and expected and Republicans were, of course, equally opposed to Democratic ideas. That’s politics! Each party has a different view of what’s best for America. Both parties, however, were filled with patriots.

The patriotism of an American political party is something that should never have to be questioned and, in the days before Obama, the proposition that a Senator or Congressperson was unpatriotic was never seriously presented outside of emotionally heated debate. Unfortunately, that proposition needs a second look on this day.

On Monday of this week, according to the Wall Street Journal, a vote to ratify the United Nation’s Law Of The Sea Treaty was narrowly defeated by Senate Republicans. This treaty, completed in 1982, has the effect of denying it’s signatories the right of sovereignty over many aspects their coastal waters and subjects the signatories of this treaty to international arbitration of disputes and the possibility that an international body could impose binding rulings on them. The United States is NOT and hopefully never will be a signatory.

The United States is and, since declaring our independence, has been a sovereign nation. In my opinion: anyone who holds an elected office in the USA, who supports a proposition to weaken or otherwise tamper with that sovereignty, is acting as an enemy of the United States.

We know from his actions and statements that President Barack Obama is not an American patriot. American sovereignty is an impediment to his plans to bring America into the “world community” as an equal. The concept of American exceptionalism; the theory that ‘the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy’ or is in any other way exceptional, is foreign to President Obama’s demonstrated view of a perfect world where no country is better than any other.

NPR funding cut passed in House


The Republicans in the House of Representatives have finally started to respond to the voter mandate to cut Federal spending that put them in office. Voting to cut funding for NPR is a very weak response but at least it’s something.

When the House bill dies in the Senate it will also bring home the fact that the House’s position as keeper of the budget is pretty much a myth!

NPR is a great radio station, no doubt about that but radio stations, tv stations and other forms of entertainment and/or information (as well as any other private sector company or industry) should be able to exist on their own, not on tax dollars. If any company can’t raise enough funds to operate, it shouldn’t be in business.

In the “big picture”, funding for NPR is a mere pittance but it’s a start — or is it the end?

When, if ever, are the Republicans in the House going to start tackling some MEANINGFUL spending such as Obama’s “Affordable (now there is a joke) Care Act” that will soon be one year old? Like everything else, Obamacare has some good points but it is overwhelmed by the bad points, the ‘baddest’ of which is the fact that the Federal Government should not be deeply involved in the medical care industry OR any other private industry.

No, as far as Obamacare is concerned, the Congress should not save the good stuff and get rid of the bad stuff as has been suggested, they should work on repealing the entire monstrosity; not just because of the extraordinary expense but because it’s an outrageous overreach on the part of the Federal government.