Archive for August 11, 2010

Andrew McCarthy, writing  in the NRO today cites a Washington Times article questioning the ever popular subject of the left, “Separation of Church and State.” It’s interesting  especially when the government now appears to be financing a fund raising trip by the very Imam who is behind the Ground Zero mosque in New York.

This appears to be a direct violation of that clause but who wants to bet that the MSM stays as far away from it as they did Obama’s background with known terrorists like Bill Ayers or fact that he’s admitted he’s Muslim?

Happy first day of Rama-dumb, my fellow Americans. They think you are.

What? Me? Serious? Ha! Never for too long…

I’ve recently read several bloggers posting in what can only be described as another one of those “I’m a Libertarian and anyone who criticizes Libertarians, no matter how stupid those Libertarians acted, is a big fat poopy head” arguments. The funny thing was the topic wasn’t even Libertarians in general. The topic was the California gay marriage ruling by some wacko homosexual activist judge.

There are a few points missing from your arguments. I’ll start with those.

1: James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.”

The Federal Government is growing beyond our control. This is the leviathan we fight. Define it as that. Our problem is with the Federal Government, if you have a problem in your State, battle it in your State either now or after the fight to get the Federal Government reeled back in.

2: Madison continues: “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Remember that line?

What part of numerous and indefinite don’t you understand? It’s mighty convenient for someone to spout off about “The State” when “The States” might just be our knights in shining armor that begin the march away from Socialism and against the Federal encroachment that (can we agree?) the Federal Government  has been pursuing.

3: Don’t confuse 1 & 2 and don’t paint them as equal. Over generalization doesn’t suit you. You’re smarter than that, and besides, aren’t we trying to restore some semblance of a Constitutional Republic?

I thought we were.

On the gay marriage issue: You know, the one that started the whole thing?

The California ruling by an openly homosexual and obviously activist judge struck down, for the SECOND time, a public vote (the very basis of our Constitutional Republic) against gay marriage. This is no small pittance of an issue but seems to be disregarded in all defenses of Libertarians for Gayness. I’ll state my views now and let the chips fall as they may.

I’m against “gay marriage” and all that comes with it. Reason being is that it is nothing more than another attempt to legitimize and promote an abhorrent activity. The gays and lesbians have used this issue and others to infiltrate our school system with the indoctrination of our children along with Hollywood and the media and their incessant promotion of the “alternative lifestyle” that if any of their parents had practiced, they would not be here to promote in the first place.

Let me state the freaking obvious for all of you who wish to quote me. There is an argument against homosexuality that stares you in the face each and every day. That argument is called anatomy and reproduction. Without the male and female sexes being different and shall we say, “accommodating” by design, uniting to produce a another human being, or procreation, would not be possible, much to the chagrin of the leaders and activists in the gay and lesbian community who would like nothing more than to promote the homosexual lifestyle to our children as legitimate. Perhaps in the glorious future it will be possible for us lowly humans to reproduce asexually, but we can’t right now, thank God. This is just one facet of the fight and you didn’t even address it!

I don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own home, but this issue to me is about our children and the left’s attempt to sell homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It is not, in my mind, legitimate, I would rather let the child grow up to make up their own mind, not influenced by some pre-indoctrination from the schools or the government or the media in general. This stance is not so much anti-homosexual as it is pro-creation.

If someone continues to sidetrack these issues, your arguments will no longer hold water with me. I don’t care what political bent you side yourself with, if you would support those who would promote a lifestyle that denies the very basics of human nature and design, then you are on the wrong side of the issue.

Likewise you’d better subject yourself to the same scrutiny that you apply to others when you accuse some brother in the fight of using over generalizations and ad-homonym attacks against your particular ism.

You have done yourselves a disservice in my eyes. Maybe I’m the only one who holds that opinion, but I don’t think so. I encourage you to re-read the entire exchange. The topic quickly went from a legitimate rant about an activist judge ruling against the will of the voters to some defense of Libertarianism in general, which was taken somewhat out of context with the discussion at hand.

Something was in the water that few days is all I know. The usually well reasoned folks I’ve come to respect had gone off and created some weird-ass feud as if we don’t have an enemy already. Grow up people. Not everyone is impugning your particular point of view and no-one would know of your bias unless you opened your own blog and removed all doubt.

The funny thing to me  in reading the rebuttals was, like I said, the original bitch got thrown out of the kennel, roaming free in the woods to breed some more while some of the would-be handlers got caught in the pen, arguing about what type of dog food is best for the pack.

I’m an admitted newcomer to your particular blogging party, but I’m no idiot and I can call out inconsistency when I see it.

Police yourselves people, and remember whose side we are on and who and what it is we are fighting for.

And BTW, marriage hasn’t always been sanctioned by religion, but it has nearly always been a legal contract and as a contract, if it is broken, bears legal consequences as to possessions and the rights of children etc. Who is going to preside over the separation and subsequent issues of ownership and custody if not the State or some local form of government?

Subscribe via email
August 2010
« Jul   Sep »