Narrow-Mindedness Leads To Confusion
Sep 28, 2005 Political
I posted not long ago about the battle the Boy Scouts are having with a gay activist group and of course, the ACLU. I made some very pointed remarks and it would seem that this has caused the narrow-minded to change those words and actually use them in a fashion that was not intended. I expect this yet I feel that I should make points clear for the readers who are more open-minded and maybe misunderstood.
The following were particularly disturbing to some:
“If there is anyone out there who honestly thinks that it is a good idea to allow boys to camp out with homosexual men or that atheism is appropriate to teach to our young?” (That should be “IS there”. I posted it that way but wanted to clarify.)
The second part, which was omitted was, then they should find their own Baden Powell and start their own scouting group. Now, I have nothing against homosexuals or atheists. I know people who fall into those categories, some into both. This sentence intended to show that people who openly proclaim these things do not belong in scouting. That is the rule the scouts have. I made it clear that if there are people out there who believe that people who openly proclaim these things want to allow it then they should have their own scout group.
“Would you want your child (though I realize you don’t have any so it is hypothetical) camping with a prostitute? A stripper? A pimp?â€
The intent was not to equate homosexuals and atheists to these groups of people. The person who commented wanted to know what was wrong with kids camping with homosexuals or hearing that religion does not affect one’s life. I realized from the comment that the writer would not look at it in a certain way because he sees nothing wrong with those groups. I tried to make the point that parents who do not want their kids exposed to homosexuals and atheists should not be forced to anymore than a person should be forced to be exposed to the other group. I figured that the reader would know that by picking a group some people would not want their children exposed to the connection might be made that even though homosexuality and atheism are not illegal, some people do not want their kids exposed to it and they should be allowed to make that decision.
This was used, out of context to show that I equated homosexuality with pedophilia:
“how their gay scoutmaster taught them a neat trick called back packing”
When in fact, this is the whole quote:
If there is anyone out there who honestly thinks that it is a good idea to allow boys to camp out with homosexual men or that atheism is appropriate to teach to our young? If so, then I suggest you find your own Baden Powell and start your own scouting group. You can call your group the co-ed scouts. And when your kids come home and tell you what fun they had camping out with the girls or how their gay scoutmaster taught them a neat trick called back packing, you will have only yourselves to blame.
If you read it you will see that I suggested that people who had no problem with homosexuals and atheists should start their own group. Then I said that when someone comes home to say something happened then they would have only themselves to blame. The purpose was to highlight that if people are forced to accept what is desired by the activists then if something happens it leaves a lot of people open to suit because they were forced against their will to expose their children to something they did not want. The point being that others should not be allowed to decide what you want your kids to be exposed to. I would ask if the narrow-minded would think it OK to ask the homosexual scout leader (if it ever happened) if he is a member of NAMBLA. Is that OK? Do you think it would be alright? And if they are, may we exclude them or are we supposed to tolerate that too? I just want to know how far your tolerance, and imposition on others, goes.
The unfortunate part is that people labeled me a bigot and intolerant. I am intolerant of many things (stupidity being number one) but I am not intolerant of homosexuals or atheists. The only religion I refuse to tolerate is satanic worship and if I am a bigot for that, so be it. I do not care if someone is an atheist. I just don’t want that small minority having the say over what the majority is allowed to do and I don’t understand how they can say they will uphold the values of a group that has God and religion as its basis. I have no hatred for homosexuals, I just do not agree with the lifestyle. But as a matter of right and wrong I will stand up and fight against people who want to impose their will on those who do not wish to have that will imposed. If the Scouts do not want these folks in their organization then they should not be there.
I don’t think that ANY organization should be forced to admit certain behaviors they do not espouse. We don’t make the priesthood accept women as priests, we don’t make the National Black Caucus have white people in it and we don’t make all girl schools accept boys (though we do the opposite). The fact is that parents, not liberal do-gooders, not the ACLU, and not trial lawyers should decide what is right for their children.
If I am a bigot for thinking that a parent has more rights in what his kid is exposed to than any one else in the world then I can live with that. I only ask that when you quote me you do it in its entirety and you accurately reflect what I say.
Tags: Political
Very Good Point
Sep 27, 2005 Political
Matt at Blogs for Bush made a great point about some of the protesters this weekend:
Now, considering the amount of money Bush has promised for the Gulf Coast region following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you have to wonder if these people think relief isn’t coming… But what really gets me about it, is that these thousands of people, who clearly have enough time on their hands to come to Washington, pretending to make a difference, did not go to Louisiana instead, to volunteer their time toward relief efforts, or stayed home to raise money for relief. Just this weekend I saw a yard sale in my neighborhood where all proceeds were going to Katrina relief… Perhaps the estimated 100,000 or so people who marched like mindless drones in the shadow of Cindy Sheehan could have done something more meaningful with their time. Matt
What a great post! How about the idea of these protesters going to the Gulf and helping out. I think it is a wonderful idea. They really can make a difference, if they would just use their energy for good….
There is a related item about protests on B4B that was relayed to them from LGF. It is a post by LGF operative Zombie about the Anatomy of a photograph. It is an interesting perspective on what is reality and how the MSM manipulates that reality to show an entirely different point of view.
Tags: Political
Social Security History
Sep 27, 2005 Political
I got this from a friend. I checked at snopes and could not find anything refuting it. It is food for thought.
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then
Finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away,” you may be interested in the following:Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE:
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell
You that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
Tags: Political
An Outsider Looking In Has A Better Grasp
Sep 27, 2005 Political
This is from David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen. It is amazing that a man looking in has a better grasp than some of the people who are actually here.
DavidWarrenOnline
ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
September 11, 2005Blame throwing
There’s plenty wrong with America, since you asked. (Everybody’s asking.) I’m tempted to say, the only difference from Canada, is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course — I am often pleased to discover things we still get right.
But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn’t even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at Washington, D.C. The theory being, that when you’re in real trouble, that’s where the adults live.
And that isn’t an exaggeration. Almost everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf Coast has been military and National Guard. Within a few days, under several commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, it was once again the U.S. military, efficiently cobbling together a recovery operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution.
We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless government after another, who have cut corners until there is nothing substantial left. We don’t have the ability even to transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is of no avail.
From Democrats and the American Left — the U.S. equivalent to the people who run Canada — we are still hearing that the disaster in New Orleans showed a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned its underclass.
This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in assisted housing, receive food stamps and prescription medicine and government support through many other programmes. Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, sans input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally, hundreds of transit and school buses parked in rows to be lost in the flood, that could have driven them out of town.
Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one’s heart goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new locations.
The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I’ll wager the most generous state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas, and that nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people who vote Republican. For the world divides into “the mouths” and “the wallets”.
The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers’ state of mind.
Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United States, and you will learn that the U.S. federal government’s legal, constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero.
Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two full days in advance of the stormfall. In the little time since, he has managed to coordinate an immense recovery operation — the largest in human history — without invoking martial powers. He has been sufficiently Presidential to respond, not even once, to the extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing.
One thinks of Kipling’s “If –” poem, which I learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it drives postmodern leftoids and gliberals to apoplexy — as anything that is good, beautiful, or true:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise…Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full sense presented by these verses. A fallible man, like all the rest, but a man.
David Warren
Tags: Political
Karl Rove Did Not Do It
Sep 27, 2005 Political
I have said in the past that we needed to wait until all the evidence was in before we could evaluate whether Karl Rove was guilty of outing Valerie Plame, the supposed covert CIA agent. I maintained from the start that since she was not undercover and had not been for some time, then if he said anything, it was not in violation of the law. I further stated that if the media said he did nothing wrong when they filed court papers on behalf of reporters facing jail time then they were admitting that Rove did nothing wrong. That did not, however, stop them from turning on him and accusing him of wrong doing.
We now have this from an interview with Cooper in Time:
As for Wilson’s wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak’s column or Googled her, I can’t recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the “agency”–by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on “WMD” (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson’s wife. Matt Cooper
So basically Cooper is saying that Rove never said her name and that he might have gotten it from the Internet. He indicates Rove told him that she worked for the agency and that she was responsible for sending her husband on a trip for the CIA.
I think that all the fuss over this has been way over blown. Plame was not a covert agent so she could not be outed. The media admitted in papers filed with the court that Rove did nothing wrong. Yet, the left still tries to have a field day by manipulating the items and insisting that some wrong took place. The left goes out of its way to say the media is not tough enough on Bush and his administration yet they are constantly attacking him. Maybe they will realize one day that the reason they can not get the goods on him is because there are no goods to be gotten.
Tags: Political