...and yes, that WAS an intended pun....
With "gay marriage" being weighed in the Supreme Court, I'm compelled to clear a couple things up...to un-muddy the waters (where Liberals prefer to reside...):
Irrespective of how this SCOTUS decision may come down, marriage doesn't change.
It never has and it never will.
In those times when multiple marriages, etc, were acceptable, marriage, the TRUE definition, never changed.
Let's say, for instance, that some other idiot Liberal group (I know...redundant...) decided to wage a campaign to change the legal definition of a car. Let's say that, instead of calling it a car, they fought, and won the right, to call it a "garden".
Would that legality change the nature of "car"?
Nope.
And neither would "gay marriage" change the nature of marriage.
Roe v Wade, although legally changed the definition of "human", it didn't, hasn't and won't change the truth of humanity.
In simplest terms, "gay marriage" does not, and cannot exist; no more than I, a heterosexual, could suddenly call myself "homosexual". Definitionally, regardless of ANY legal action, it isn't a possibility.
So, win the Socialists may. After all, this same ideology, not so many years ago, legally changed the definition of "human", and, as a result, have butchered over 54 MILLION Americans.
No folks, the REAL intent to "gay marriage" has NOTHING to do with marriage; just like the REAL intent of "Roe v Wade" has NOTHING to do with "women's rights".
The intent of BOTH is five-fold:
1. Destruction of "family". Pure and simple, the more grotesquely the legal definition of marriage is bastardized (really....no pun intended), the more the nature of "family" is rendered, socially, worthless. This leads to the intermediate goal:
2. Destruction of "God". Without "God", there is NO such thing as "unalienable rights". Without "unalienable rights", the Government, taking the place of God, decides which of us is equal. Which leads, finally, to...
3. The Socialization of America. Marxism CANNOT exist where "family" and "God" are strong. Weaken, or eliminate God and family, the way is cleared for Marxism. (Ask Hitler and Stalin...it worked for them...)
4. Also, as with ALL Liberal legislation, "gay marriage" serves to place the consequences and responsibilities of a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE...homosexuality....off the shoulders of the choice-makers, and squarely ON the shoulders of society. (Keep in mind that, to date, "homosexuality" is NOT a genetic reality but, rather, a behavioral choice. Therefore, it is NOT the same, as Liberals would try to have you believe, as women's voting rights, race-based rights, etc).
5. If decided in favor of "gays", this decision opens the door to all manner of Liberal wet dreams, including multiple marriage, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, statutory marriage, etc.
Now, although Liberals will not respond to this piece (because they are wrong, they know it, and they are cowards), they will refer to me as "homophobic".
By way of official response, to those Liberals: (yawn)
Don't worry, folks. If the "gays" get there way, it STILL won't be marriage.
In fact, it NEVER will be.
Ever.
To quote Pope Francis I on "gay marriage": "Let’s not be naive: this isn’t a simple political fight, it’s an attempt to destroy God’s plan"
To this, I would add, "...and replace it with Karl Marx's..."
Hirota: out.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gay marriage. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gay marriage. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Clarity
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/06/Same-Sex-Marriage-SCOTUS
Funny how this is being interpreted......by "gays".....
This, they view as a win. And, I suppose, it is, in a way. If SCOTUS doesn't hear these cases, then the court tosses the issue back to the states.
And they are right (the Court, that is).
"Gay marriage" ISN'T a Constitutional issue.
"Gay marriage" is a DEFINITIONAL issue.
Just as DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was struck down, "gay marriage" also has NO business being debated from a Constitutional standpoint, other than whether it IS or ISN'T a matter of Constitution.
Why?
Simple: "gay" (homosexual, properly) ISN'T a genetic disposition. NO science has concluded that homosexuality is genetic.
In fact, the closest to a genetic issue that homosexuality has is "predisposition".
As in, there MAY BE genes which, if expressed, might predispose a person to be homosexual.
This position, however, is highly speculative and ultimately inconclusive as well.
What HASN'T been demonstrated (to date) is the presence of a "gay gene".
Therefore, based on that inconclusive science, the BEST evidence points to a POSSIBLE genetic predisposition. ONLY.
Put in context, this is the same realm as drug addiction (also a probable genetic predisposition).
So, in ACTUAL reality, and based on ALL current, REAL, evidence, homosexuality is a behavioral choice.
A BEHAVIORAL CHOICE. period.
THIS is why the SCOTUS won't hear these cases. And they are right.
Homosexuals love to portray themselves as the new "black" or "woman", from a rights perspective.
This is a lie. Or, at best, a misunderstanding of the actual facts.
So, what the SCOTUS ACTUALLY said was EXACTLY this:
"Gay marriage" has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Same goes for ANY marriage issue.
"Gay marriage" is a definitional problem, since marriage is VERY specifically defined throughout history. And, although there have been cultures and people who have attempted to change that definition, marriage remains marriage; a legal union binding one man to one woman.
No amount of legislation or activism will EVER change this.
Ever.
Funny how this is being interpreted......by "gays".....
This, they view as a win. And, I suppose, it is, in a way. If SCOTUS doesn't hear these cases, then the court tosses the issue back to the states.
And they are right (the Court, that is).
"Gay marriage" ISN'T a Constitutional issue.
"Gay marriage" is a DEFINITIONAL issue.
Just as DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was struck down, "gay marriage" also has NO business being debated from a Constitutional standpoint, other than whether it IS or ISN'T a matter of Constitution.
Why?
Simple: "gay" (homosexual, properly) ISN'T a genetic disposition. NO science has concluded that homosexuality is genetic.
In fact, the closest to a genetic issue that homosexuality has is "predisposition".
As in, there MAY BE genes which, if expressed, might predispose a person to be homosexual.
This position, however, is highly speculative and ultimately inconclusive as well.
What HASN'T been demonstrated (to date) is the presence of a "gay gene".
Therefore, based on that inconclusive science, the BEST evidence points to a POSSIBLE genetic predisposition. ONLY.
Put in context, this is the same realm as drug addiction (also a probable genetic predisposition).
So, in ACTUAL reality, and based on ALL current, REAL, evidence, homosexuality is a behavioral choice.
A BEHAVIORAL CHOICE. period.
THIS is why the SCOTUS won't hear these cases. And they are right.
Homosexuals love to portray themselves as the new "black" or "woman", from a rights perspective.
This is a lie. Or, at best, a misunderstanding of the actual facts.
So, what the SCOTUS ACTUALLY said was EXACTLY this:
"Gay marriage" has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Same goes for ANY marriage issue.
"Gay marriage" is a definitional problem, since marriage is VERY specifically defined throughout history. And, although there have been cultures and people who have attempted to change that definition, marriage remains marriage; a legal union binding one man to one woman.
No amount of legislation or activism will EVER change this.
Ever.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
On this Independence Day weekend.....
To close this wonderful holiday weekend (celebrating the most hated day in the Liberal calendar), I thought I'd take a moment to put pen to some thoughts and perspective.....
GAY MARRIAGE
The Supreme Court has struck down "DOMA" (The Defense of Marriage Act). This clears the way for states to allow for "gay marriage". First, I'm perfectly OK with the striking down of this law, as it IS, in my opinion, outside the purview of the Federal Government and SHOULD be an issue for individual states, as the Constitution mandates.
MY issue is with the standard to which the striking-down was held. Justice Kennedy, ever the fence-sitter, suggested, in his majority opinion, that DOMA represented an unfair law because it favored one class of Americans over another.
IMAGINE if he (and ALL the Liberals on the Court) applied the same standard to "women's rights" laws, Affirmative Action, Roe v Wade.......
Now....a bit of perspective...
Will Liberals suddenly be happy, now that the way has been cleared for them to "marry"?
Answer: no.
In fact, they'll NEVER be happy about "gay marriage".
WHY?
Because, folks, "gay marriage" ISN'T marriage, and homosexuals know it.
Just like Roe v Wade doesn't change the fact that a human is a human. "Roe" is merely a Liberal attempt to replace God's law with their own law. But the fact remains that those who practice abortion, advocate abortion, support abortion are committing murder.
NOTHING will change that.
No Supreme Court decision, no Congressional law or act, no Presidential decree will EVER change what marriage is: a union between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court, Congress and the President could suddenly decide that the sun is no longer a star, but guess what? Nothing will change the fact the sun is a star.
And marriage remains marriage.
And it will never be different.
Now, a prediction:
We'll be seeing a push for legalization of "multiple marriage", "incestuous marriage", "bestial marriage", "underage marriage", etc.
Pandora's box is open and, since Liberals have no sense of responsibility, they WILL be pushing for all these.
OBAMACARE
Obamacare remains a disaster; from it's 3-4x over-budget costs, to it's now-delayed implementation, to it's 1500+ "big corporations" being given waivers.
It remains a joke being played on all Americans, and supported by tragically stupid and gullible Liberals.
Geeeeez.....where were these people when me and the lads were organizing suckers for a snipe hunt?!?
MATTERS OF FAITH
The war on Christianity continues. Of course, the biggest target is the Catholic Church, since it's the longest-standing; whose Dogma and Doctrine have remained pretty much consistent throughout history.
And, with Pope Francis at the helm now, the Church has reaffirmed it's VERY Conservative principles.
And, although I'd truly love to see a true, REAL, change of heart for the likes of Pelosi, Kerry, the WHOLE Kennedy family, etc, until that happens, I look forward to their excommunication....publicly.
And, once again, here we have a situation where Liberals actively infiltrate the Church and it's clergy, in order to corrupt it from within; all the while claiming "modernization". They attack it from the outside, through the media, and from the inside.
But, again, the Church remains the Church. NO Liberal will EVER change it.
That's about it for now.
More later......
By the way......for those who don't dig blogging, my email has changed:
timothyhirota1@gmail.com
Hirota: Conservative, Catholic, outspoken....always.
GAY MARRIAGE
The Supreme Court has struck down "DOMA" (The Defense of Marriage Act). This clears the way for states to allow for "gay marriage". First, I'm perfectly OK with the striking down of this law, as it IS, in my opinion, outside the purview of the Federal Government and SHOULD be an issue for individual states, as the Constitution mandates.
MY issue is with the standard to which the striking-down was held. Justice Kennedy, ever the fence-sitter, suggested, in his majority opinion, that DOMA represented an unfair law because it favored one class of Americans over another.
IMAGINE if he (and ALL the Liberals on the Court) applied the same standard to "women's rights" laws, Affirmative Action, Roe v Wade.......
Now....a bit of perspective...
Will Liberals suddenly be happy, now that the way has been cleared for them to "marry"?
Answer: no.
In fact, they'll NEVER be happy about "gay marriage".
WHY?
Because, folks, "gay marriage" ISN'T marriage, and homosexuals know it.
Just like Roe v Wade doesn't change the fact that a human is a human. "Roe" is merely a Liberal attempt to replace God's law with their own law. But the fact remains that those who practice abortion, advocate abortion, support abortion are committing murder.
NOTHING will change that.
No Supreme Court decision, no Congressional law or act, no Presidential decree will EVER change what marriage is: a union between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court, Congress and the President could suddenly decide that the sun is no longer a star, but guess what? Nothing will change the fact the sun is a star.
And marriage remains marriage.
And it will never be different.
Now, a prediction:
We'll be seeing a push for legalization of "multiple marriage", "incestuous marriage", "bestial marriage", "underage marriage", etc.
Pandora's box is open and, since Liberals have no sense of responsibility, they WILL be pushing for all these.
OBAMACARE
Obamacare remains a disaster; from it's 3-4x over-budget costs, to it's now-delayed implementation, to it's 1500+ "big corporations" being given waivers.
It remains a joke being played on all Americans, and supported by tragically stupid and gullible Liberals.
Geeeeez.....where were these people when me and the lads were organizing suckers for a snipe hunt?!?
MATTERS OF FAITH
The war on Christianity continues. Of course, the biggest target is the Catholic Church, since it's the longest-standing; whose Dogma and Doctrine have remained pretty much consistent throughout history.
And, with Pope Francis at the helm now, the Church has reaffirmed it's VERY Conservative principles.
And, although I'd truly love to see a true, REAL, change of heart for the likes of Pelosi, Kerry, the WHOLE Kennedy family, etc, until that happens, I look forward to their excommunication....publicly.
And, once again, here we have a situation where Liberals actively infiltrate the Church and it's clergy, in order to corrupt it from within; all the while claiming "modernization". They attack it from the outside, through the media, and from the inside.
But, again, the Church remains the Church. NO Liberal will EVER change it.
That's about it for now.
More later......
By the way......for those who don't dig blogging, my email has changed:
timothyhirota1@gmail.com
Hirota: Conservative, Catholic, outspoken....always.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Supremes' supreme ignorance of....science
Yep, science.
Not unlike in '73, when the Supremes completely ignored the human rights issue in the abortion debate, the "gay marriage" decision also blatantly ignores science.
(Personally, I find it curious that Liberals....ever accusing the Right of being in "science denial", deny science on issues like homosexuality, reproductive genetics and historical global climate patterns.)
I digress....
With the blogosphere alight with "gay pride", one thing is PAINFULLY clear: most of the folks, on both sides of the issue, haven't a CLUE as to the nature of the debate. So, here we go:
1. The Human Genome Project was concluded in 2006, having mapped the entirety of the human genome. Before, during and since, Liberals have hoping to find "the gay gene". To date, no such gene has been found. The body of science is, ultimately, inconclusive. However, SOME science DOES seem to indicate a "genetic predisposition" to homosexuality, though this, too, remains inconclusive.
Therefore, based on current, relevant science, homosexuality remains a behavioral choice.
A behavioral choice, folks.
2. Throughout the history of our culture, "marriage" has been specifically defined and, although there have been those who have worked feverishly to redefine it, marriage remains unchanged in its definition. No Supreme Court decision will change that (just like no Supreme Court decision will redefine "homosexual". It's a definitional thing).
3. The Supremes' decision to legalize "gay marriage" in all states accomplishes two primary things:
First, relieves "gays" of the consequences of their behavioral choice and forces society to assume those consequences. Second, it violates states' rights sovereignty and makes "gay marriage" a federal issue (they did the same in Roe).
4. Although there is language....sort of....making allowances for "religious freedoms", in actual practice, the First Amendment's religious freedoms have been rendered meaningless. THAT battle is one we will see IMMEDIATELY and continually from this point forward.
So, in one decision, the Supremes have alleviated personal responsibility, taken on the role of Meriam-Webster, relegated states' rights to the trash heap and rendered the First Amendment meaningless.
But, there are FAR deeper issues here, folks.
Consider:
In 2011 (and far earlier than that, in other blogs and letters-to-the-editor), I've warned of the consequences associated with the legalization of "gay marriage":
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-did-you-expect.html
And repeated that warning many times since:
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=bestial
This IS the "slippery slope", folks. First "gay marriage", then multiple, incestuous, bestial, etc...
It is only a matter of time.
Check these out:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/
http://www.virped.org/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/
https://knowitnextpsychicpredictions.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/movement-to-legalize-incestpedophilia/
ALL of this leads to the one thing essential to a Marxist state: the destruction of the family.
It is ABSOLUTELY clear, throughout history, that the destruction of the family, along with the destruction of the concept of God, the destruction of private property rights (hello "Kelo") and the confiscation of private firearms lead to one...ONLY...conclusion:
Communism.
This week, we witnessed two GIANT steps toward that end.
The only question that remains is this:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Not unlike in '73, when the Supremes completely ignored the human rights issue in the abortion debate, the "gay marriage" decision also blatantly ignores science.
(Personally, I find it curious that Liberals....ever accusing the Right of being in "science denial", deny science on issues like homosexuality, reproductive genetics and historical global climate patterns.)
I digress....
With the blogosphere alight with "gay pride", one thing is PAINFULLY clear: most of the folks, on both sides of the issue, haven't a CLUE as to the nature of the debate. So, here we go:
1. The Human Genome Project was concluded in 2006, having mapped the entirety of the human genome. Before, during and since, Liberals have hoping to find "the gay gene". To date, no such gene has been found. The body of science is, ultimately, inconclusive. However, SOME science DOES seem to indicate a "genetic predisposition" to homosexuality, though this, too, remains inconclusive.
Therefore, based on current, relevant science, homosexuality remains a behavioral choice.
A behavioral choice, folks.
2. Throughout the history of our culture, "marriage" has been specifically defined and, although there have been those who have worked feverishly to redefine it, marriage remains unchanged in its definition. No Supreme Court decision will change that (just like no Supreme Court decision will redefine "homosexual". It's a definitional thing).
3. The Supremes' decision to legalize "gay marriage" in all states accomplishes two primary things:
First, relieves "gays" of the consequences of their behavioral choice and forces society to assume those consequences. Second, it violates states' rights sovereignty and makes "gay marriage" a federal issue (they did the same in Roe).
4. Although there is language....sort of....making allowances for "religious freedoms", in actual practice, the First Amendment's religious freedoms have been rendered meaningless. THAT battle is one we will see IMMEDIATELY and continually from this point forward.
So, in one decision, the Supremes have alleviated personal responsibility, taken on the role of Meriam-Webster, relegated states' rights to the trash heap and rendered the First Amendment meaningless.
But, there are FAR deeper issues here, folks.
Consider:
In 2011 (and far earlier than that, in other blogs and letters-to-the-editor), I've warned of the consequences associated with the legalization of "gay marriage":
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-did-you-expect.html
And repeated that warning many times since:
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=bestial
This IS the "slippery slope", folks. First "gay marriage", then multiple, incestuous, bestial, etc...
It is only a matter of time.
Check these out:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/
http://www.virped.org/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/meet_pedophiles_who_mean_well/
https://knowitnextpsychicpredictions.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/movement-to-legalize-incestpedophilia/
ALL of this leads to the one thing essential to a Marxist state: the destruction of the family.
It is ABSOLUTELY clear, throughout history, that the destruction of the family, along with the destruction of the concept of God, the destruction of private property rights (hello "Kelo") and the confiscation of private firearms lead to one...ONLY...conclusion:
Communism.
This week, we witnessed two GIANT steps toward that end.
The only question that remains is this:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Friday, June 6, 2014
Delusions
Ever hear of Emperor Norton? No? Here's his (Wiki) story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
Why, on earth, bring up Emperor Norton?
Simple: his story is being played out today....
....in the "gay" community.
Specifically, the notion (perhaps I should say 'norton') of "gay marriage".
LOTS of headlines in the news these days about states and courts allowing "gay marriage".
But, just as Emperor Norton was delusional...believing that he was the Emperor of the United States (and protector of Mexico), so "gays" are delusional in believing that their union is marriage.
Marriage, throughout history, has always been one man, one woman. And, although there have been many attempts to change that definition (multiple marriages, etc), marriage remains one man, one woman.
The bottom line....the truth....is this:
"Emperor Norton", although recognized as "Emperor", in truth never was. And nothing will EVER change that fact.
"Gay marriage" isn't marriage; irrespective of what the law supposes. And nothing will EVER change that fact.
Hirota: out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
Why, on earth, bring up Emperor Norton?
Simple: his story is being played out today....
....in the "gay" community.
Specifically, the notion (perhaps I should say 'norton') of "gay marriage".
LOTS of headlines in the news these days about states and courts allowing "gay marriage".
But, just as Emperor Norton was delusional...believing that he was the Emperor of the United States (and protector of Mexico), so "gays" are delusional in believing that their union is marriage.
Marriage, throughout history, has always been one man, one woman. And, although there have been many attempts to change that definition (multiple marriages, etc), marriage remains one man, one woman.
The bottom line....the truth....is this:
"Emperor Norton", although recognized as "Emperor", in truth never was. And nothing will EVER change that fact.
"Gay marriage" isn't marriage; irrespective of what the law supposes. And nothing will EVER change that fact.
Hirota: out.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
This may SEEM like humor.....
Democrats REALLY SHOULD pay attention (I can't believe that I'm actually trying to protect them...from themselves).
So, homosexuals want "gay marriage", right?
And, throughout the long battle, I've pointed out that there is, and can never be, "gay marriage", since "marriage" is VERY specifically defined: one man, one woman. Period.
So, the legal relationship between two like-gendered people is NOT a "marriage".
And yet, they wish to change the definition of "marriage".
Ok, fine.
In the past, I've argued that the ultimate test of laws and balanced views is that that law or view applies equally, to all.
As an example:
Since a "White Congressional Congress", an "NAAWP", a "WET" network, etc, would NEVER....EVER.....be allowed, then the black versions of those groups are not legitimate.
So, Liberals.....
Suppose America decides to change the definition of....abortion?
And suppose they change that definition from the termination of pregnancy to the termination of Democrats. Or how about the termination of blacks. Or the termination of females.
Far-fetched? Really?
Your own president voted to allow abortion AFTER BIRTH.
Margaret Sanger advocated abortion as a means to control the population of blacks.
China utilizes abortion to control the number of women in the population.
Democrats, blacks, women....you could be next.
.........
I've consistently held that a change in the definition of "marriage" would lead to the legalization and normalization of multiple marriage, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, etc. And certainly, groups are appearing to be aggressively pursuing these ends.
And all this because people, who have made a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE, now refuse to accept the consequences of that choice.
Such is Liberalism.
Such is the Democrat Party.
So, homosexuals want "gay marriage", right?
And, throughout the long battle, I've pointed out that there is, and can never be, "gay marriage", since "marriage" is VERY specifically defined: one man, one woman. Period.
So, the legal relationship between two like-gendered people is NOT a "marriage".
And yet, they wish to change the definition of "marriage".
Ok, fine.
In the past, I've argued that the ultimate test of laws and balanced views is that that law or view applies equally, to all.
As an example:
Since a "White Congressional Congress", an "NAAWP", a "WET" network, etc, would NEVER....EVER.....be allowed, then the black versions of those groups are not legitimate.
So, Liberals.....
Suppose America decides to change the definition of....abortion?
And suppose they change that definition from the termination of pregnancy to the termination of Democrats. Or how about the termination of blacks. Or the termination of females.
Far-fetched? Really?
Your own president voted to allow abortion AFTER BIRTH.
Margaret Sanger advocated abortion as a means to control the population of blacks.
China utilizes abortion to control the number of women in the population.
Democrats, blacks, women....you could be next.
.........
I've consistently held that a change in the definition of "marriage" would lead to the legalization and normalization of multiple marriage, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, etc. And certainly, groups are appearing to be aggressively pursuing these ends.
And all this because people, who have made a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE, now refuse to accept the consequences of that choice.
Such is Liberalism.
Such is the Democrat Party.
Monday, July 21, 2014
What are those famous words.....?
Oh...yeah....
I TOLD YOU SO.
I've written, NUMEROUS times, what the INTENDED consequences of "gay marriage" normalization would be....
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=gay+marriage
So, now we have THIS in the news.....
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/new-mtv-motto-incest-is-hot/?cat_orig=health
Oh, and these.....
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110817
http://www.polygamy-faq.com/propolygamy.php
Etc.....
NOW you know why Democrats want "gay marriage". It has NOTHING to do with homosexuals.
Democrats couldn't give a rat's ass about homosexuals OR their rights.
This is ALL about the destruction of marriage.
Destroy marriage, destroy family.....which destroys God.
Marxism wins.
I TOLD YOU SO.
I've written, NUMEROUS times, what the INTENDED consequences of "gay marriage" normalization would be....
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=gay+marriage
So, now we have THIS in the news.....
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/new-mtv-motto-incest-is-hot/?cat_orig=health
Oh, and these.....
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110817
http://www.polygamy-faq.com/propolygamy.php
Etc.....
NOW you know why Democrats want "gay marriage". It has NOTHING to do with homosexuals.
Democrats couldn't give a rat's ass about homosexuals OR their rights.
This is ALL about the destruction of marriage.
Destroy marriage, destroy family.....which destroys God.
Marxism wins.
Monday, October 6, 2014
This is when, sadly, I get to say.....
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/pedophilia-deserves-civil-rights-says-nyts-op-ed/?cat_orig=us
Let me be clear....AGAIN:
When "gay marriage" is allowed, it opens the door (yes, the slippery slope) to incestuous marriage, underage (pedophilic) marriage, multiple marriage, bestial marriage, etc.
So, now I get to say:
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Here's the proof that I DID, in fact, tell you so.....over and over AND OVER......
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=Gay+marriage
What the FU** is wrong with Democrats?!?!?
And, what the FU** is wrong with EVERYONE ELSE who remains silent about this?!?!?!
Let me be clear....AGAIN:
When "gay marriage" is allowed, it opens the door (yes, the slippery slope) to incestuous marriage, underage (pedophilic) marriage, multiple marriage, bestial marriage, etc.
So, now I get to say:
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Here's the proof that I DID, in fact, tell you so.....over and over AND OVER......
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/search?q=Gay+marriage
What the FU** is wrong with Democrats?!?!?
And, what the FU** is wrong with EVERYONE ELSE who remains silent about this?!?!?!
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Let's get something straight (Yes....pun intended)
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/27/duck-dynasty-uproar-divides-gay-conservatives
Some might ask whether there IS such a thing as a "Conservative gay".
I believe that there is.
Homosexuality, at this moment in time, based on all scientific evidence available, is a behavioral choice.
Homosexuality, as a choice, is not inherently non-Conservative.
Conservatism, I'll remind you, is all about choice. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is lying.
Choice, BUT with two requirements:
1. In making that choice, the chooser assumes ALL consequences and responsibilities of that choice.
2. In making that choice, the chooser may not violate the rights of another person. If the choice causes another's rights to be violate, then that choice cannot be made.
With these two principles in mind, homosexuality is perfectly Conservative.
The misperception and outright lies (usually from the Left and, unfortunately, all-too-often from the Right) happen when homosexuals, in living out their choice, do NOT follow these principles; instead deciding that society must be required to assume the responsibilities and consequences of their choice and that they are free to violate the rights of others in the exercising of their choice.
For instance:
- "Gay Marriage". Homosexual unions can never be called "marriage", simply because, by definition, marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. A consequence of homosexual choice is that that union cannot be properly called "marriage".
- "Gay rights". Because of their chosen circumstance (homosexuality), some homosexuals have decided that, by virtue of their choice, they should be granted rights that do not exist for other groups.
These are only two examples.
And, NEITHER are Conservative positions.
So, with respect to the Phil (no pun intended) thing, any homosexual who does NOT agree that Phil was simply exercising his rights under the Constitution, ISN'T "Conservative". Period.
THAT homosexual is a Liberal.
Hirota: out.
Some might ask whether there IS such a thing as a "Conservative gay".
I believe that there is.
Homosexuality, at this moment in time, based on all scientific evidence available, is a behavioral choice.
Homosexuality, as a choice, is not inherently non-Conservative.
Conservatism, I'll remind you, is all about choice. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is lying.
Choice, BUT with two requirements:
1. In making that choice, the chooser assumes ALL consequences and responsibilities of that choice.
2. In making that choice, the chooser may not violate the rights of another person. If the choice causes another's rights to be violate, then that choice cannot be made.
With these two principles in mind, homosexuality is perfectly Conservative.
The misperception and outright lies (usually from the Left and, unfortunately, all-too-often from the Right) happen when homosexuals, in living out their choice, do NOT follow these principles; instead deciding that society must be required to assume the responsibilities and consequences of their choice and that they are free to violate the rights of others in the exercising of their choice.
For instance:
- "Gay Marriage". Homosexual unions can never be called "marriage", simply because, by definition, marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. A consequence of homosexual choice is that that union cannot be properly called "marriage".
- "Gay rights". Because of their chosen circumstance (homosexuality), some homosexuals have decided that, by virtue of their choice, they should be granted rights that do not exist for other groups.
These are only two examples.
And, NEITHER are Conservative positions.
So, with respect to the Phil (no pun intended) thing, any homosexual who does NOT agree that Phil was simply exercising his rights under the Constitution, ISN'T "Conservative". Period.
THAT homosexual is a Liberal.
Hirota: out.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Only a couple days to go.....
LIBERALS.......PLEASE!!!!!!!
There are only a few precious days left in the year, and you seem to be letting a damn Brit steal the coveted "Most STUPID human on the planet" award.
This award is practically an American tradition, from Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (a dual award...her and Bill), NARAL, NOW, Jeanine Garofolo, Harry Belafonte, Moragn Freeman, Brad Pitt, Alan Grayson, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi.......
ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.......Liberal Americans, from every corner of their cesspool, line up to capture the title.
....and yet, with only a couple days to go, looks like Piers Morgan is going to be a SLAM-DUNK winner.
I can't fathom a more stupid statement than, not only what USUALLY comes out of his useless pie hole, his statement today about "gay marriage". Suggesting that the Bible and the Constitution are "inherently flawed", said the moron Morgan, in a conversation with Rick Warren:
“Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence, the need to amend it.”
“My point to you about gay rights, for example, it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.”
Personally, I think we've got a winner. IN fact, I think Morgan may have hit some kind of record....
THE most stupid statement in history.
This is the stuff of legends, folks!
Back to reality:
NO, the Constitution ISN'T "flawed".
NO, the Bible ISN'T "flawed".
The definition of "marriage" WILL NEVER CHANGE, no matter HOW Liberals attempt to destroy it's meaning.
Oh, sure, Americans may continue their frank ignorance and vote for something as useless as "gay marriage", but it will not last. It never does.
No, the only thing "flawed" about the Constitution OR the Bible are the interpretations of those who are intent on rendering them meaningless.
You know.....LIBERALS.
Hirota: out.
There are only a few precious days left in the year, and you seem to be letting a damn Brit steal the coveted "Most STUPID human on the planet" award.
This award is practically an American tradition, from Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (a dual award...her and Bill), NARAL, NOW, Jeanine Garofolo, Harry Belafonte, Moragn Freeman, Brad Pitt, Alan Grayson, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi.......
ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.......Liberal Americans, from every corner of their cesspool, line up to capture the title.
....and yet, with only a couple days to go, looks like Piers Morgan is going to be a SLAM-DUNK winner.
I can't fathom a more stupid statement than, not only what USUALLY comes out of his useless pie hole, his statement today about "gay marriage". Suggesting that the Bible and the Constitution are "inherently flawed", said the moron Morgan, in a conversation with Rick Warren:
“Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence, the need to amend it.”
“My point to you about gay rights, for example, it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.”
Personally, I think we've got a winner. IN fact, I think Morgan may have hit some kind of record....
THE most stupid statement in history.
This is the stuff of legends, folks!
Back to reality:
NO, the Constitution ISN'T "flawed".
NO, the Bible ISN'T "flawed".
The definition of "marriage" WILL NEVER CHANGE, no matter HOW Liberals attempt to destroy it's meaning.
Oh, sure, Americans may continue their frank ignorance and vote for something as useless as "gay marriage", but it will not last. It never does.
No, the only thing "flawed" about the Constitution OR the Bible are the interpretations of those who are intent on rendering them meaningless.
You know.....LIBERALS.
Hirota: out.
Monday, June 29, 2015
This is an example of how Liberalism (Marxism) works
Remember when I said this:
Liberals believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, irrespective of whether that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, free of personal responsibility and personal consequence.
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-reminder-conservatism-101.html
The SCOTUS ruling about "gay marriage" fulfills both traits of Liberalism:
1. With the "legalization" of "gay marriage", homosexuals relieve themselves of the responsibilities and consequences of their choice. Those responsibilities and consequences will now be shouldered by society.
2. Already, the war on The First Amendment has begun it's new phase:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/29/it-begins-new-calls-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exempt-status-after-samesex-marriage-ruling-n2018688
With this ruling, Liberals are now free to make any choice, irrespective of whether the rights of others are violated.
When the newly formed United States broke from the king, it took 3% of the population to take up arms and fight the war of that revolution.
Who are those "3%" today?
Liberals believe:
- A person is free to make any choice, irrespective of whether that choice violates the rights of others.
- A person may make any choice, free of personal responsibility and personal consequence.
http://brainycattle.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-reminder-conservatism-101.html
The SCOTUS ruling about "gay marriage" fulfills both traits of Liberalism:
1. With the "legalization" of "gay marriage", homosexuals relieve themselves of the responsibilities and consequences of their choice. Those responsibilities and consequences will now be shouldered by society.
2. Already, the war on The First Amendment has begun it's new phase:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/06/29/it-begins-new-calls-to-strip-churches-of-tax-exempt-status-after-samesex-marriage-ruling-n2018688
With this ruling, Liberals are now free to make any choice, irrespective of whether the rights of others are violated.
When the newly formed United States broke from the king, it took 3% of the population to take up arms and fight the war of that revolution.
Who are those "3%" today?
Friday, September 9, 2011
REAL "hope and change", Mississippi style....
In Mississippi, a ballot measure has been approved for vote in the upcoming 2012 General Election. Officially "Ballot Measure #26", and titled "Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?" (link of text provided below), Mississippians (I assume that's what they're referred-to as...) will have a chance to act in defense of, and legally protect the God-given, unalienable, fundamental rights granted to EVERY human being; rights that, up to this point, have been grossly violated by Liberals.
And make NO mistake about it: the dehumanization of the unborn is 100% a product of Liberalism, as expressed through The Democratic Party, who protect, defend and expand the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, and who, in frank honestly, revel in the butchery of the most innocent of all humans.
Throughout American history, the Democratic Party has proven to be the party of "legislated inequality", from their protection of slavery, to their excluding blacks and women from voting rights, to "hate crime" legislation, to "women's rights" laws, to abortion law, to embryonic stem cell research. At the root of ALL these wildly discriminatory, unconstitutional pieces of legislation
is...The Democratic Party. Although, I freely admit that what has aided in this march to Marxism has been a "silent (Conservative) majority".
The Ballot Measure in Mississippi is important for a couple reasons, in addition to THE MOST important reason: protection of the rights of the unborn (or rather, the ESTABLISHMENT of human rights for the unborn).
First, along with South Dakota, a systematic attack on "Roe" IS necessary to eventually overturn this "abortion" of a law. More states following suit WILL lead to the most profound (and necessary) equal rights legislation, along with the abolition of slavery, in our nation's history.
In actuality, overturning Roe v Wade, just like the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage, restores the Constitution to it's original language, it's original intent and acts to reverse the damage caused by FAR too many years of Liberalism.
Second, placing Ballot Measure 26 on the ballot in the 2012 general election will bring Conservative voters to the polls. Of course, although it can be argued that an equal reaction from hardcore Marxists will ALSO come out to vote...against it..., the reality is there are more Conservatives than Liberals in America (as proven by the 2004 election, when thirteen states had "gay marriage" on the ballot: ALL 13 states defeated the proposals and those thirteen states carried Bush to his second term). And, since it is IMPERATIVE that Conservatives get out and vote for Conservative candidates, ballot measures like #26 will help to regain the Senate, hold and grow the House and, perhaps, recapture the Oval Office.
BRAVO to Mississippi! I hope those great people will take up the challenge in defense of our innocents.
And, I hope that other states place on THEIR ballots, other measures that DIRECTLY attack Liberalism ("Gay Marriage", "Single Payer Health care", Gun Control legislation, etc).
Folks: Liberals have declared war on our nation.
Don't we owe it to our future generations to preserve our freedom and liberty?
http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=84
Hirota: out.
And make NO mistake about it: the dehumanization of the unborn is 100% a product of Liberalism, as expressed through The Democratic Party, who protect, defend and expand the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, and who, in frank honestly, revel in the butchery of the most innocent of all humans.
Throughout American history, the Democratic Party has proven to be the party of "legislated inequality", from their protection of slavery, to their excluding blacks and women from voting rights, to "hate crime" legislation, to "women's rights" laws, to abortion law, to embryonic stem cell research. At the root of ALL these wildly discriminatory, unconstitutional pieces of legislation
is...The Democratic Party. Although, I freely admit that what has aided in this march to Marxism has been a "silent (Conservative) majority".
The Ballot Measure in Mississippi is important for a couple reasons, in addition to THE MOST important reason: protection of the rights of the unborn (or rather, the ESTABLISHMENT of human rights for the unborn).
First, along with South Dakota, a systematic attack on "Roe" IS necessary to eventually overturn this "abortion" of a law. More states following suit WILL lead to the most profound (and necessary) equal rights legislation, along with the abolition of slavery, in our nation's history.
In actuality, overturning Roe v Wade, just like the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage, restores the Constitution to it's original language, it's original intent and acts to reverse the damage caused by FAR too many years of Liberalism.
Second, placing Ballot Measure 26 on the ballot in the 2012 general election will bring Conservative voters to the polls. Of course, although it can be argued that an equal reaction from hardcore Marxists will ALSO come out to vote...against it..., the reality is there are more Conservatives than Liberals in America (as proven by the 2004 election, when thirteen states had "gay marriage" on the ballot: ALL 13 states defeated the proposals and those thirteen states carried Bush to his second term). And, since it is IMPERATIVE that Conservatives get out and vote for Conservative candidates, ballot measures like #26 will help to regain the Senate, hold and grow the House and, perhaps, recapture the Oval Office.
BRAVO to Mississippi! I hope those great people will take up the challenge in defense of our innocents.
And, I hope that other states place on THEIR ballots, other measures that DIRECTLY attack Liberalism ("Gay Marriage", "Single Payer Health care", Gun Control legislation, etc).
Folks: Liberals have declared war on our nation.
Don't we owe it to our future generations to preserve our freedom and liberty?
http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=84
Hirota: out.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
HABEMUS PAPAM
More later, but there's a new Pope.....
Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina is now Pope Francis.
Early reports seem to indicate a VERY Conservative person....anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, etc.
Sadly, so far, Liberals will be VERY upset; especially those who claim to be Catholic (you know....the pro-gay-marriage, pro-big-government, pro-abortion Catholics....).
So far.....THANK YOU, GOD!
Hirota: out.
Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio from Argentina is now Pope Francis.
Early reports seem to indicate a VERY Conservative person....anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, etc.
Sadly, so far, Liberals will be VERY upset; especially those who claim to be Catholic (you know....the pro-gay-marriage, pro-big-government, pro-abortion Catholics....).
So far.....THANK YOU, GOD!
Hirota: out.
Monday, May 21, 2012
An open letter to the GOP and the Romney campaign
To the GOP and Romney camp,
With your current campaign methods, Obama WILL likely win in November.
Have you learned NOTHING from McCain's failure to capitalize on the long-standing relationship between "Reverend" Wright and Obama? Obviously not.
So......please let an 'average Joe' citizen help you out:
GET PRO-ACTIVE!
STOP SIMPLY REACTING TO THE LIES OF LIBERALS!
On top of attacking Obama's horrific record, you MUST include.....by this, I mean make central to your campaign...the issues which "team Obama" REFUSE to discuss.
Specifically:
- ABORTION. Let the American people know that your first act as President will be to overturn Obama's executive order (which overturned President Bush's executive order, banning the use of US tax dollars to fund foreign abortions).
- THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Strongly and LOUDLY support The Second Amendment. AND, let the American people know WHY the Obama camp REFUSES to mention this issue.
- "GAY MARRIAGE". Even though Obama mentioned his support of "gay marriage", he also let it be known that he intends to do NOTHING about it. Of COURSE this is a lie. However, he will REFUSE to address this issue during his campaign. YOU......TEAM ROMNEY.....MUST MAKE IT AN ISSUE DURING THIS CAMPAIGN.
- OIL. Team Obama WILL NOT DISCUSS this issue. You MUST!
GOP, Romney camp, AMERICANS:
It's ALLLLLLLLL about bringing the fight to them. As long as you are RE-acting, you will be unable to PRO-act. And by only RE-acting, YOU.....WILL........LOSE.
Hirota: PROACTING
With your current campaign methods, Obama WILL likely win in November.
Have you learned NOTHING from McCain's failure to capitalize on the long-standing relationship between "Reverend" Wright and Obama? Obviously not.
So......please let an 'average Joe' citizen help you out:
GET PRO-ACTIVE!
STOP SIMPLY REACTING TO THE LIES OF LIBERALS!
On top of attacking Obama's horrific record, you MUST include.....by this, I mean make central to your campaign...the issues which "team Obama" REFUSE to discuss.
Specifically:
- ABORTION. Let the American people know that your first act as President will be to overturn Obama's executive order (which overturned President Bush's executive order, banning the use of US tax dollars to fund foreign abortions).
- THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Strongly and LOUDLY support The Second Amendment. AND, let the American people know WHY the Obama camp REFUSES to mention this issue.
- "GAY MARRIAGE". Even though Obama mentioned his support of "gay marriage", he also let it be known that he intends to do NOTHING about it. Of COURSE this is a lie. However, he will REFUSE to address this issue during his campaign. YOU......TEAM ROMNEY.....MUST MAKE IT AN ISSUE DURING THIS CAMPAIGN.
- OIL. Team Obama WILL NOT DISCUSS this issue. You MUST!
GOP, Romney camp, AMERICANS:
It's ALLLLLLLLL about bringing the fight to them. As long as you are RE-acting, you will be unable to PRO-act. And by only RE-acting, YOU.....WILL........LOSE.
Hirota: PROACTING
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Grounds for impeachment
"I, [name of the one taking the oath], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States so help me God."
So states the Presidential Oath of Office. These words are spoken and the oath sworn according to the mandates of the Constitution. And, as with all Presidents elected before him, Obama spoke these words and swore his oath.
This past week, The White House announced that Obama has instructed his administration to no longer support "The Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), an act, signed into law by Clinton in 1996, which fundamentally defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Although under fire from "gay rights" groups and Liberal lawmakers from the moment of its inception, the Defense of Marriage Act remains Federal Law.
Obama's decision was arrived-at from a series of meetings with his Attorney General, Eric Holder. Together, they decided that one of the key provisions of the Act was unconstitutional. And so, together, the decision was made to cease defending the law and further forbid the Obama administration from defending it, as well.
Federal law, folks, IS the Constitution. The "Defense of Marriage Act" IS Constitutional Law. Therefore, the President is REQUIRED, BY LAW, to uphold and defend it. He cannot arbitrarily decide not to defend it, just as he cannot arbitrarily decide not to defend ANY other Federal law.
The ONLY way that Obama can simply set the law aside is if the law is overturned in Congress or if determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. NEITHER of these has happened.
THEREFORE, in deciding to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama is in direct violation of his Oath of Office, and therefore is subject to the Articles of Impeachment.
Additionally, the fact that he (along with Holder) have specifically instructed the administration to ALSO "no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act", any one of his administration who follows these instructions is guilty of conspiracy to violate Federal Law.
It is my hope that one of two things happen:
1. That Obama will change his mind and uphold the Constitution.....ALL OF IT.
2. That Conservatives in Congress will, in fact, file Articles of Impeachment against Obama.
I STRONGLY encourage all of you to write/call/contact your representatives and demand action. REMEMBER: Your activism has begun the process of bringing sanity back to American government and ONLY your activism will restore this country to its Constitutional greatness!
Hirota: OUT!
So states the Presidential Oath of Office. These words are spoken and the oath sworn according to the mandates of the Constitution. And, as with all Presidents elected before him, Obama spoke these words and swore his oath.
This past week, The White House announced that Obama has instructed his administration to no longer support "The Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), an act, signed into law by Clinton in 1996, which fundamentally defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Although under fire from "gay rights" groups and Liberal lawmakers from the moment of its inception, the Defense of Marriage Act remains Federal Law.
Obama's decision was arrived-at from a series of meetings with his Attorney General, Eric Holder. Together, they decided that one of the key provisions of the Act was unconstitutional. And so, together, the decision was made to cease defending the law and further forbid the Obama administration from defending it, as well.
Federal law, folks, IS the Constitution. The "Defense of Marriage Act" IS Constitutional Law. Therefore, the President is REQUIRED, BY LAW, to uphold and defend it. He cannot arbitrarily decide not to defend it, just as he cannot arbitrarily decide not to defend ANY other Federal law.
The ONLY way that Obama can simply set the law aside is if the law is overturned in Congress or if determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. NEITHER of these has happened.
THEREFORE, in deciding to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama is in direct violation of his Oath of Office, and therefore is subject to the Articles of Impeachment.
Additionally, the fact that he (along with Holder) have specifically instructed the administration to ALSO "no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act", any one of his administration who follows these instructions is guilty of conspiracy to violate Federal Law.
It is my hope that one of two things happen:
1. That Obama will change his mind and uphold the Constitution.....ALL OF IT.
2. That Conservatives in Congress will, in fact, file Articles of Impeachment against Obama.
I STRONGLY encourage all of you to write/call/contact your representatives and demand action. REMEMBER: Your activism has begun the process of bringing sanity back to American government and ONLY your activism will restore this country to its Constitutional greatness!
Hirota: OUT!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Guess who???
Ok, folks.....
Recently (today), some wonderful, supportive, admiring and inspiring quotes were made about Obama's big win.
Please read the quotes below and guess who said them:
"We meet on the heels of an enormous people’s victory. It was a long and bitterly contested battle in which the forces of inclusive democracy came out on top. The better angels of the American people spread their wings"
“If anything the vote … is an insistent call for action on the most pressing problems facing the working class and people. That is the election’s mandate. This was not a vote in favor of destroying social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; or rolling back domestic spending; or resolving the budget crisis on the people’s backs. It was instead a vote for jobs, housing relief, health care, withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, an end to U.S.-led wars in the Middle East, preservation of the social safety net, health care access, reproductive rights, and equal pay for women, infrastructure renewal (an issue that took on greater importance after megastorm Sandy), marriage equality, a larger commitment to public education, a tax system in which the wealthiest families and corporations pay a much larger share, reform of our punitive and anti-democratic immigration laws, a reduction in unconscionable inequality, a legislative and electoral system that isn’t awash with corporate money.”
“Our contribution was both ideological and practical. Nearly every member and leader was involved. Our work gives us much to build on as we throw ourselves into the post-election battles. In every state and city our political relationships are broader and deeper; our presence and prestige are on a new level."
“While many things went into Obama’s victory, what was notable was the ability of the democratic movement to turn back Republican efforts to suppress the vote; what was of great import was the determination of the people’s movement (with labor in the lead) to reach, educate, and turn out tens of millions of American voters on Election Day; what not surprising was the continuing, strategic, and sometimes underappreciated role of the African American people (93 per cent voted for the president) in the front ranks (at the head in many instances) of the struggle for progress and democracy.”
“The president is the most popular politician in the country. Nobody has the political and moral authority that he has. He isn’t a radical, but by the same token to classify him as a run-of-the-mill capitalist politician doesn’t fit either. Of the Democratic Party presidents of the 20th century, none had the deep democratic sensibilities that he possesses. It is crucial that he lead this struggle but he can’t and won’t do it alone. He needs a mass movement that will nudge him forward as well as have his back as he goes up against recalcitrant Republicans, big sections of monopoly capital, and wavering centrist Democrats in Congress in this and in subsequent battles.”
“Our main task is to build broad people’s unity, guarantee the participation of the key social and class forces, counter the right-wing narrative with a working-class and people’s narrative, and bring forward an alternative program. What stood out in the election was the power of unity and diversity. That may seem contradictory, but it was the interaction of the two that turned what could have been a defeat into a people’s victory. Had Latinos not voted in such significant numbers in Nevada, Colorado and Florida, it is hard to see the president’s path to victory. Had African Americans not turned out in record numbers it is tough to see how the president could have won in most of the battleground states. Had labor not mobilized its membership to vote in Ohio and other Rust Belt states, it’s a stretch to see the president emerging triumphant on election night. Likewise, had single young women not cast their ballots in large numbers, it is difficult to visualize his victory.”
“It is easy to dismiss white people, including white workers, as not only racist, but also backward on a range of issues, such as peace, gun control, reproductive rights, gay marriage, and so forth. Looking at the white vote in this election provides ample evidence for this claim. Worse still, close to 65 percent of white men cast their vote for Romney. What motivated them can’t be reduced to race alone. A substantial number of white people, I’m sure, bought the idea that in an underperforming economy Romney would be a better steward than the president. And there were other issues that motivated them to vote for Romney as well. But, at the same time, for many of them, racism must have either taken up the biggest space in or is closely entwined with the bundle of resentments and wrong understandings that accounts for their voting behavior.”
Long-winded?
Hell, yes. But, it should be noted that, when some Christians are "filled with the Holy Spirit", they, too, speak in tongues....
Back to the point: Who said all these worship-filled words? Who provided this inspiration for the future of America? Who is SO very excited that his vision is fully and finally in reach????
The answer:
SAM WEBB.
Who's Sam Webb?
SAM WEBB IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, USA.
Hirota: out.
Recently (today), some wonderful, supportive, admiring and inspiring quotes were made about Obama's big win.
Please read the quotes below and guess who said them:
"We meet on the heels of an enormous people’s victory. It was a long and bitterly contested battle in which the forces of inclusive democracy came out on top. The better angels of the American people spread their wings"
“If anything the vote … is an insistent call for action on the most pressing problems facing the working class and people. That is the election’s mandate. This was not a vote in favor of destroying social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; or rolling back domestic spending; or resolving the budget crisis on the people’s backs. It was instead a vote for jobs, housing relief, health care, withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, an end to U.S.-led wars in the Middle East, preservation of the social safety net, health care access, reproductive rights, and equal pay for women, infrastructure renewal (an issue that took on greater importance after megastorm Sandy), marriage equality, a larger commitment to public education, a tax system in which the wealthiest families and corporations pay a much larger share, reform of our punitive and anti-democratic immigration laws, a reduction in unconscionable inequality, a legislative and electoral system that isn’t awash with corporate money.”
“Our contribution was both ideological and practical. Nearly every member and leader was involved. Our work gives us much to build on as we throw ourselves into the post-election battles. In every state and city our political relationships are broader and deeper; our presence and prestige are on a new level."
“While many things went into Obama’s victory, what was notable was the ability of the democratic movement to turn back Republican efforts to suppress the vote; what was of great import was the determination of the people’s movement (with labor in the lead) to reach, educate, and turn out tens of millions of American voters on Election Day; what not surprising was the continuing, strategic, and sometimes underappreciated role of the African American people (93 per cent voted for the president) in the front ranks (at the head in many instances) of the struggle for progress and democracy.”
“The president is the most popular politician in the country. Nobody has the political and moral authority that he has. He isn’t a radical, but by the same token to classify him as a run-of-the-mill capitalist politician doesn’t fit either. Of the Democratic Party presidents of the 20th century, none had the deep democratic sensibilities that he possesses. It is crucial that he lead this struggle but he can’t and won’t do it alone. He needs a mass movement that will nudge him forward as well as have his back as he goes up against recalcitrant Republicans, big sections of monopoly capital, and wavering centrist Democrats in Congress in this and in subsequent battles.”
“Our main task is to build broad people’s unity, guarantee the participation of the key social and class forces, counter the right-wing narrative with a working-class and people’s narrative, and bring forward an alternative program. What stood out in the election was the power of unity and diversity. That may seem contradictory, but it was the interaction of the two that turned what could have been a defeat into a people’s victory. Had Latinos not voted in such significant numbers in Nevada, Colorado and Florida, it is hard to see the president’s path to victory. Had African Americans not turned out in record numbers it is tough to see how the president could have won in most of the battleground states. Had labor not mobilized its membership to vote in Ohio and other Rust Belt states, it’s a stretch to see the president emerging triumphant on election night. Likewise, had single young women not cast their ballots in large numbers, it is difficult to visualize his victory.”
“It is easy to dismiss white people, including white workers, as not only racist, but also backward on a range of issues, such as peace, gun control, reproductive rights, gay marriage, and so forth. Looking at the white vote in this election provides ample evidence for this claim. Worse still, close to 65 percent of white men cast their vote for Romney. What motivated them can’t be reduced to race alone. A substantial number of white people, I’m sure, bought the idea that in an underperforming economy Romney would be a better steward than the president. And there were other issues that motivated them to vote for Romney as well. But, at the same time, for many of them, racism must have either taken up the biggest space in or is closely entwined with the bundle of resentments and wrong understandings that accounts for their voting behavior.”
Long-winded?
Hell, yes. But, it should be noted that, when some Christians are "filled with the Holy Spirit", they, too, speak in tongues....
Back to the point: Who said all these worship-filled words? Who provided this inspiration for the future of America? Who is SO very excited that his vision is fully and finally in reach????
The answer:
SAM WEBB.
Who's Sam Webb?
SAM WEBB IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, USA.
Hirota: out.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Building the Socialist "utopia"
I have long contended that the goal of The Democrat Party is the same as any other Socialist political party, from Soviet Russia to "Nazi" Germany to China to Cuba to Venezuela.
That goal is this:
The destruction of the notion and practice of "family".
There exist myriad examples:
- Hillary Clinton's book "it takes a village to raise a child"
- Roe v Wade and the entire pro-abortion movement
- Welfare
- "Gay marriage"
- LGBT movement'
- "Women's rights" movement
- The "Children's bill of rights"
- NOW
- NARAL
- The "feminist" movement
- The National Women's Political Caucus
ALL these issues are driven by, supported by, pushed by, defended by.....The Democrat Party.
What I haven't generally discussed is the "WHY".....
To this, there are two goals:
- The destruction of "God" (replaced by the state)
- The construction of a compliant citizenry.
To the second point, it MUST begin with the children. Consider:
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107§ionid=692
http://www.newsweek.com/study-says-martial-woes-hit-children-rich-and-poor-differently-269380
Children of single parents:
- More likely to have drug problems
- More likely to commit crime
- More likely to drop out of school
- Less likely to graduate from high school
- More likely to experience depression
- etc etc etc.
In fact, there isn't a SINGLE "positive" statistic.
So, it is ABSOLUTELY clear. ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCAL:
The WORST possible way to raise a child is in a single parent family.
And, what is ALSO ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ANS UNEQUIVOCAL is this:
Forcing children to be raised in single family homes IS THE GOAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.
So, now I have to ask:
What are YOU going to do about it?
That goal is this:
The destruction of the notion and practice of "family".
There exist myriad examples:
- Hillary Clinton's book "it takes a village to raise a child"
- Roe v Wade and the entire pro-abortion movement
- Welfare
- "Gay marriage"
- LGBT movement'
- "Women's rights" movement
- The "Children's bill of rights"
- NOW
- NARAL
- The "feminist" movement
- The National Women's Political Caucus
ALL these issues are driven by, supported by, pushed by, defended by.....The Democrat Party.
What I haven't generally discussed is the "WHY".....
To this, there are two goals:
- The destruction of "God" (replaced by the state)
- The construction of a compliant citizenry.
To the second point, it MUST begin with the children. Consider:
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107§ionid=692
http://www.newsweek.com/study-says-martial-woes-hit-children-rich-and-poor-differently-269380
Children of single parents:
- More likely to have drug problems
- More likely to commit crime
- More likely to drop out of school
- Less likely to graduate from high school
- More likely to experience depression
- etc etc etc.
In fact, there isn't a SINGLE "positive" statistic.
So, it is ABSOLUTELY clear. ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCAL:
The WORST possible way to raise a child is in a single parent family.
And, what is ALSO ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ANS UNEQUIVOCAL is this:
Forcing children to be raised in single family homes IS THE GOAL OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.
So, now I have to ask:
What are YOU going to do about it?
Monday, February 19, 2018
THE inconvenient truth.
“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand
the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and
enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.
We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
-
For some seventy years, our children have been taught to
disrespect authority; whatever the form. Government, police, teachers, bosses,
parents…. our children, many of whom are adults now, are brought up in a
culture of disrespect and are told that disrespect is a quality to be admired.
-
Madonna, Che Guevara, Miley Cyrus, “Chelsea” Manning……our
children are told that these people are heroes. HEROES. The previous generations?
Bill Ayers, Timothy Leary, Jane Fonda…
-
For some seventy years, our children are told that they can make
ANY choice they want, without fear of consequence and without ANY personal
responsibility.
o
Want to abuse drugs? No problem….the state will provide the
needles.
o
Want to be promiscuous? No problem….if something happens, blame
the unborn child, then kill it.
o
Want to kill someone? No problem…..blame your upbringing, blame
the gun, blame society. Then, become a cult hero.
And,
legislatively, we have set up, in official terms, the release of personal
responsibility.
-
For seventy-odd years, we have taught our children that the
exercise of their rights is more important than the rights of others. In other
words, they can make ANY choice, whether or not that choice violates the rights
of others. The greatest example of this is, of course, abortion.
-
For seventy-plus years, there has been a systematic attack on “family”;
Welfare, “single motherhood”, “gay” marriage, etc, are all designed to diminish
the core unit of a successful society. Without family, core values, morality,
respect for others, are absent. Without family, the state becomes the moral
compass, the state becomes the teacher of core values, the state becomes “family”.
-
For some seventy years, our children are taught that winning is
unfair, that participation is the same as winning and that no one loses.
No family.
No moral compass.
No values.
No personal responsibility.
No consequences.
And, today, we, somehow, cannot fathom how tragedies like
Parkland happen.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Blame the media......
Yes, I'm speaking to homosexuals, folks.
Blame the media.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/16/Pope-Francis-Same-Sex-Marriage-Opponent-Named-Person-of-the-Year-By-Gay-Rights-Mag
To name the Pope as Person of the Year? You BET!!! Blame the media.
Since the Pope made his comments about "...who am I to judge...", the media, with their extreme Liberal bias, has SO deliberately and grotesquely mis-represented the Catholic position on homosexuality that even homosexuals are buying into their ridiculousness.
HUH?
You read that right, folks!
The Church hasn't changed it's views on homosexuality, folks. Pope Francis hasn't suddenly moved the Church in some new direction.
In fact, his statements reflect both the Church's as well as his own Conservatism. Period.
He's right in his question: who IS he (or any of us) to judge?
As homosexuality, until proven otherwise, is a behavioral choice, two consenting adults are free to make that choice.....as long as they also assume all the responsibilities and consequences of that choice.
Now, how is it that the Pope can make his statements, yet be SO aggressively against homosexual marriage?
Again......homosexuality is a behavioral choice. A consequence of choosing that lifestyle is the fact that any same-sex relationship that exist falls outside the definition of "marriage" (which, of course, is between ONE man and ONE woman).
So, to simply restate the Church's position with respect to homosexuals, the Pope has exposed the hypocrisy.....and the irony....of Liberals.
Gosh.....maybe they'll make ME "Person of the Year"......(snicker)
Hirota: out
Blame the media.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/16/Pope-Francis-Same-Sex-Marriage-Opponent-Named-Person-of-the-Year-By-Gay-Rights-Mag
To name the Pope as Person of the Year? You BET!!! Blame the media.
Since the Pope made his comments about "...who am I to judge...", the media, with their extreme Liberal bias, has SO deliberately and grotesquely mis-represented the Catholic position on homosexuality that even homosexuals are buying into their ridiculousness.
HUH?
You read that right, folks!
The Church hasn't changed it's views on homosexuality, folks. Pope Francis hasn't suddenly moved the Church in some new direction.
In fact, his statements reflect both the Church's as well as his own Conservatism. Period.
He's right in his question: who IS he (or any of us) to judge?
As homosexuality, until proven otherwise, is a behavioral choice, two consenting adults are free to make that choice.....as long as they also assume all the responsibilities and consequences of that choice.
Now, how is it that the Pope can make his statements, yet be SO aggressively against homosexual marriage?
Again......homosexuality is a behavioral choice. A consequence of choosing that lifestyle is the fact that any same-sex relationship that exist falls outside the definition of "marriage" (which, of course, is between ONE man and ONE woman).
So, to simply restate the Church's position with respect to homosexuals, the Pope has exposed the hypocrisy.....and the irony....of Liberals.
Gosh.....maybe they'll make ME "Person of the Year"......(snicker)
Hirota: out
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Rather than dribs and drabs....
More news, of course, about Wendy Davis (running for Governor of Texas, while running away from her past)
Since she seems to be in the "support of the month" club, it's getting kinda confusing to figure out just who she's blowing today......
We might as well get Wendy Davis' WHOLE agenda consolidated in one place......here:
Pro-medical marijuana
Anti medical marijuana
Pro late-term abortion
Pro life
Pro gun
Pro gun control
Pro gay marriage
Pro DOMA
Pro high taxes
Pro low taxes
Pro big Government
Pro small Government
There....that about wraps it up.
Now that I think about it, this is beginning to sound like the John Kerry campaign!
Hirota: out
Since she seems to be in the "support of the month" club, it's getting kinda confusing to figure out just who she's blowing today......
We might as well get Wendy Davis' WHOLE agenda consolidated in one place......here:
Pro-medical marijuana
Anti medical marijuana
Pro late-term abortion
Pro life
Pro gun
Pro gun control
Pro gay marriage
Pro DOMA
Pro high taxes
Pro low taxes
Pro big Government
Pro small Government
There....that about wraps it up.
Now that I think about it, this is beginning to sound like the John Kerry campaign!
Hirota: out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)