Raving Conservative


Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Presidential Power

Considering all the hubbub over President Bush having the NSA spy on some American communications with foreign terrorists, I thought it would be appropriate to do a little research into the matter and see exactly what the President do in the given situation and why. Here is what I found.

The President is the top commander of our military, and as such has the right to make military decisions. Anyone familiar with the military knows that the military does not necessarily operate under the Constitution, but falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. All military rights are also outlined there, and they closely resemble the Constitutional rights soldiers give up when we sign up to become government property, but they are not the same. It is also widely acknowledged that the US Constitution does not apply to the enemy when we are actively engaged in a war.

Given what I have just stated, we are forced to examine who, exactly, was being spied on. The monitored communications were exclusively between foreign terrorists, and their agents inside the US. Under the existing laws of warfare, that makes them all enemy combatants, and places them outside the US Constitution and into the military realm. Furthermore, since terrorists do not perform the requisite activities to fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention, they and their supporters lack even that rudimentary protection. Given all of this we are able to do far more than just listen to some phone calls the foreign terrorists make.

Also, just so nobody can miss this essential fact: the ones being spied on were the foreign terrorists! The fact that their communications were with US residents/citizens does not protect the foreign terrorists from being spied on.

Furthermore, even outside of the capacity of Commander in Chief, the President actually has some very broad extralegal powers. Some widely accepted examples are pardons, where the President overrules the rule of law and actually undermines justice in favor of mercy or political favors, and the Executive Order, which is a law issued by the President that utterly bypasses the Congressional process of lawmaking. The Executive Order has other uses as well, like sending the military in to provide disaster relief without first being asked by the State Governor, like so many on both the right and the left were demanding after Katrina hit. What almost all of them failed to realize is that such an action, while within the President’s power, violates the law, and the US Constitution itself. So it seems that there is a sort of selectivity in regards to which extralegal powers the left WANTS the President to exercise.

Further proof of this is found in the Oath of Office for the President. It is unique among the oaths of office made at the federal level because it does not swear to uphold the law. Rather, it swears to execute the Office of the President, which many Constitutional scholars say is a reference to the Founder’s intent that the President hold extralegal powers out of necessity.

Does this give the President Carte Blanch to do whatever he pleases and forget the law? Obviously not, as the Nixon debacle proved when he spied on political opponents and obstructed justice, and as the impeachment of Bill Clinton proved when he too obstructed justice. It does, however, and history has proven, give the President al of the authority he needs to spy on the enemy when we are at war.

So get over it libs. The President did the right thing by spying on those foreign terrorists. And as far as I am concerned, the refusal to acknowledge the fact that foreigners were the primary target of the spying in favor of “American Rights” is silly, short sighted, purely political, bad for America, and borderline treason. Must you make it as easy as possible for our enemies to murder us on our soil?

Monday, January 30, 2006

So Help Me God

Someone proposed an interesting idea to me recently when he suggested that I would be offended if Koran’s started showing up in courtrooms across the U.S. My first thought surprised even me. It was: “Since Muslims recognize no moral authority other than Allah, maybe having them swear on a Koran might help guarantee more honest testimony from them.”

Let me explain.

The phrase “So help me God” with the witnesses hand on the Bible has been removed from the oath witnesses take before giving testimony in a court of law. It was done because some bigot was offended by it and claimed that it constituted government sponsorship of a religion, and there were enough morons on the Supreme Court to side with him. This phrase had been put into the oath because it made people make an oath unto a greater moral authority than man, and for many this actually does guarantee honest testimony, others . . . not so much. Either way, it served a specific purpose.

Now back to Muslims. Islam declares that any vow given to an infidel (every non-Muslim in the world) is completely non-binding. Muslims also recognize Allah as the only God. So if swearing to “tell the truth, the whole truth so help me” is non-binding when given to an infidel court, and swearing to “tell the truth, the whole truth so help me God” with his hand on the Bible is swearing to a moral authority the Muslim does not recognize; of what value is the oath? Now if a Muslim, even a terrorist swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth so help me Allah” with his hand on the Koran you can be assured he will not lightly break an oath made to his god.

This theory applies to other religions that recognize a higher moral authority. Buddhists could swear to Buddha. Hindus could swear to Shiva or Ganesh. Scientologists could swear to L. Ron Hubbard or whatever he claimed God to be. The only religion I can see this backfiring with is Satanists since Satan is the Father of Lies they would be free to lie as they please with such an oath.

So rather than forcing the phrase “So help me God” out of the courtroom it might be more appropriate to allow whatever religious oath fits the individual being sworn in. By having everybody swear by the moral authority they hold most high perhaps we can be assured of more honest testimony from everybody. Who knows; it just might work.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

So Much for Peace in Palestine

It’s official. Hamas, a notorious terrorist organization now has its own country. They have taken 76 seats of the Palestinian Parliament, that’s 57%, a clear majority, with the nearly as bad Fatah Party holding another 35%. If Palestine were officially recognized as a sovereign state it would easily top the list of terrorist nations.

Hamas ran on a party platform of the destruction of Israel and the wiping out or driving the Jews from the land. Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for this course of action.

This just proves what I and other realists have been saying all along.

Palestine will never allow peace with Israel to become a reality.

I have called for full military, diplomatic, and economic support of Israel in the past. I do so again now wit renewed vigor. The way the world has succored Palestine in spite of the evil deeds of that rogue terrorist camp of a faux nation has not served the cause of peace, but has actually fostered greater violence and the spread of terrorism.

Palestine has spoken. It will never accept a peaceful coexistence with Israel. The only response remaining now is to drive the Palestinians from the land, to scatter them among the Muslim nations, and return the land to the Israelis who have steadily given it up in a vain hope for peace.

Already the liberal supporters of Palestine here in the US are demanding patience, demanding that we give the terrorist group Hamas a chance to work peacefully with Israel. These people are one of two things, deluded or rabid anti-Semites who want to see Israel destroyed as much as Hamas does. Do not listen to their lies. We know the truth because we have been assaulted by it steadily for decades. To deny it is folly and invites war and destruction on a vast scale. Unfortunately, at this point, to do the right thing could have the exact same consequence.

Such is the dilemma we force upon ourselves when we refuse to deal decisively with terrorists.


I have received some flak for stating that Christian morals are a good foundation for American law. Some of the criticism has been downright venomous. Therefore I need to explain my position, but don’t expect any apologies.

First let me explain what Christian morals do not include. They do not include witch hunts like the ones in Salem Massachusetts. They do not include unholy inquisitions like the infamous Spanish Inquisition of the Catholic Church. They do not include racism like the KKK and other white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups claim. These examples of evil are perversions of the truth and are intolerable. Most people who believe in the teachings of the Bible agree on this.
Now let me tackle what the Bible does teach morally.

One of the first things people attack is the “outdated” sexual teachings of the Bible. They say all this no adultery, no fornication, no homosexuality stuff just doesn’t fit into modern society, and is even “bigoted”. Okay, let’s examine that.

Fornication is responsible for the high rates of STD transmission, unwed pregnancy, and has been linked to the high rate of divorce. Granted some divorces would still happen if people never fornicated, but let’s look at the other things. Is it possible to catch a sexually transmitted disease or get pregnant without sexual activity? It’s obvious that the answer is a resounding no, with one exception in all of history. Mary mother of Jesus was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ.

Let’s examine the social impact of no fornicating. First there is the tremendous monetary cost. STD’s are expensive to treat on a national scale. Also, tens of thousands of women are sterilized every year by STD’s they never even knew they had, which causes horrific emotional damage to many of them. Condoms would e almost unneeded. The vast majority of condoms are used by unwed sexually active people. The preferred method of birth control for married couples is the pill. The truth is, condoms are for disease control far more that are for birth control, but they appear to be failing because STD rates are so high. AIDS would be a minor nuisance rather than a global epidemic, and the social and economic damage it causes wouldn’t exist.

Speaking of AIDS, it would never have come into humanity at all if some sicko hadn’t banged a monkey in the first place.

Homosexuality is touchy subject these days for some reason. Part of the reason is ignorance on the part of people who claim to be Christians, which, according to polls is something like ninety percent of America. Just so you know, homosexuality is declared to be a hell-worthy activity in the books of Leviticus, Corinthians, and Revelation. So if you say you’re a Christian you are kind of stuck with agreeing with me unless you want to call God a liar.

But let’s leave religion aside for a moment and examine the social impact of homosexuality. Is it really as harmless as some people would have us believe? Hardly. To begin with, homosexuals live an average of fifteen years less than their heterosexual counterparts, and this is not including AIDS in the picture. With AIDS it more like twenty years less. Homosexuals are abused and killed by their partners at a higher rate per person than their heterosexual counterparts. Suicide among homosexuals is significantly higher than it is among heterosexuals, and it’s even higher among transsexuals. Homosexuals have a much incidence of disease, not just STD’s, but disease in general than heterosexuals. In fact, they get sick so much that the cost of providing insurance to employees skyrockets when a company offers it to homosexual partners. It gets so high that companies often have to drop the insurance program altogether.

Adultery has all the effects of fornication with the added effect of betraying and traumatizing an innocent victim. Also, back to fornication, a lot of people, especially women, are severely damaged emotionally when they give in to sexual advances thinking that there is genuine love and respect on the part of the other, only to be crushed to discover they were just being used for sex. And back on homosexuality, the vast majority of child molesters are men, right? Yeah, that includes those who molest young boys. And by the way, did you know that boys who are molested by a man grow up to be homosexual themselves at a much higher rate than the general population. No wonder NAMBLA say “sex before eight before it’s too late”, the bastards.

Now that that particular heavy topic is out of the way, let’s look at some of the less contentious things. Judeo-Christian morals cover a wide variety of things. Stealing is wrong according to those values, and it’s easy to agree when you consider the billions theft costs the economy every year and the psychological damage it causes to individuals who are robbed. Murder is wrong, almost no-one in America would challenge this fact. Rape is as wrong as murder.

These are all nice big topics, but let’s look at some minor ones. When people don’t take a day here and there to rest they burn out, lose their health, and develop psychological problems. So it seems to me that resting on the seventh day of the week just makes sense. If you don’t get drunk you won’t drive drunk, go into a drunken rage, get alcohol poisoning, or get incapacitated and get raped. Ditto for drugs. If you treat people with love and respect they usually return the favor, and that comes in quite handy when you need a friend or need help. If people didn’t steal we wouldn’t need to go to such extremes to protect our property. And if you really want to be silly and argue about the tiniest things, you can’t catch trichinosis if you don’t eat pork.

See, the morals taught in the Bible are all good for physical, emotional, and mental health. Not following these morals degrades the physical, emotional, and mental health of the society that abandons them. So to the social relativists who say anything’s okay as long as no one gets hurt; people are getting hurt every day by people not following Biblical morals. Therefore, by your own philosophy, it is wrong to not live Biblical morals. Chew on that for a bit.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Attack Iran Next

Iran’s leaders are calling for the destruction of Israel and the US. This cry has gone on for thirty years now.

Iran is the same country that celebrates the storming of a US embassy and the violent kidnapping of US citizens every year. This is the same country where a popular carnival game is called “Kill the American”. This is the same country that is openly developing nuclear weapons while claiming it is for peaceful purposes. And it is the same country that has been sending terrorists around the world, and particularly into Iraq to kill westerners.

I said it before and I’ll say it again. Iran is more of a threat to us that Iraq ever was. We had more justification to invade Iraq since Saddam had only violated something like 16 UN resolutions that vowed military repercussions if he did not follow them, but Iran was and is the more important target.

Iran openly threatens us, and it openly threatens our allies. It has already covertly attacked us and our allies by sending their terrorists after us. This is an act of war.

I hate war. But what other solution is there when dealing with an openly hostile and violent nation that has actually gotten more opposed to us after decades of peaceful negotiations on our part? I am afraid the War on Terror must inevitably lead to Iran before they start threatening us with fully functional nuclear weapons.

I, like many Americans hoped that Iran’s new president would be more moderate, that age would have tempered his fire. I did not expect this however. I had him pegged as a radical who hates America, Israel, and the rest of western society. Once again I was right. This ability of mine to predict the worst in people gets really depressing sometimes. If things continue on their present course without intervention now we may be sucked into an even greater war as I ran uses nuclear weapons against Israel or possibly invades Iraq shortly after we pull out.

Are the American people willing to make the sacrifices now to prevent greater loss in the future? Can the military reasonably be expected to continue fighting one war after another without a time of peace in between for everyone to recover, soldier and civilian alike? What’s more, can this be done without needing to reinstate the draft as recruitment continues to fall and voluntary military manpower shrinks?

What to do? What to do?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Fruit of Islam

“From Mecca to Cairo, the Middle East is a shining example of freedom and equality. Women have the same rights as men, the arts and sciences are advancing swiftly, and all in a region of peace and tolerance.”

The above, as you have probably figured out already, is not a modern quote, at least not by any sane person on the face of the planet. It is a statement about the Middle East during the years 300-400 AD, before Islam was invented.

It is a sad fact that while the Middle East was once the most enlightened part of the world it was all destroyed with the rise of Islam. As the Jihadis swept across the region killing or converting everyone they met, they left behind a wake of ignorance and oppression. Women were swiftly relegated to the status of near-slavery. Books were burned as being contrary to the Muslim faith. Dissenting voices were silenced in blood. Sadly, this trend continues even to this day.

It is said that you can judge a man by his fruits. That you can see whether there is good or evil in the hearts of men by what they bring about. By this standard I can only conclude that Mohammed was lacking. Muslims would disagree vehemently with this statement, and they are welcome to do so. They would argue that Mohammed brought Islam, and, therefore, salvation and comfort to the world. I disagree.

Islam has brought tyranny and oppression to a place that was once free. It has brought ignorance and illiteracy where once science and literature abounded. It has brought anti-Semitism to the Jewish homeland. It has brought Terrorism and wonton destruction throughout the world. It has done so by following the teachings and example of its founder, Mohammed.

This is not good fruit, and worse, it is exactly what the religion’s founder did.

When Christians or Buddhists engage in hatred, tyranny, or other crimes against humanity it is done CONTRARY to the teachings of those religion’s founders. This is actually true for many religions, but not for Islam. Islam is so unique in its violent heritage that it has the distinction of being the only religion in the world to have rules for conducting wars. Only a religion with violence at its core would put such a thing in its holy doctrines.

Considering this history, considering the fruit that Islam has borne into the world, is it any wonder that the worm of terrorism has emerged from it?

Monday, January 23, 2006

Amazing Dig

I was reading the November 2005 issue Popular Science, and I came across the most amazing project the Japanese are doing. They are actually going to drill all the way down to the Earth’s mantle to take samples of the molten magma in an attempt to find primitive life similar to that which might have existed in a young, highly volcanic Earth.

The basics are that they have devised an ingenious way to solve the problem of the drill holes collapsing under pressure once the deep sea drill reaches 1.7 miles into the Earth’s crust, and they apparently have an alloy capable of withstanding the tortuous heat of molten magma and the crushing pressure under the Earth’s crust. This is magnificent stuff. Science at it’s best.

However, as I thought the article over some concerns came to mind.

The primary question is: what will opening a new hole in the Earth’s crust do?

The answer is probably nothing. But what of the other possibilities, no matter how remote?

The pressure down that deep is tremendous, beyond anything we could hope to withstand. This said, it would seem to me that there is a remote possibility of this hole being widened into a crack. This crack could possibly spread the way a crack in a windshield does until it hits another crack and becomes a full-blown fault line.

I’m not silly enough to suggest that a new fault line in the deep sea would be the end of the world, but it would produce earthquakes, and those earthquakes would produce Tsunamis. This would be very bad.

It could also alter continental drift. This could result some very interesting changes in the pattern of earthquakes worldwide.

A more likely possibility is that it would produce a new underwater volcano. It would almost certainly be harmless, although, given enough time it could possibly produce an Island, but would be more likely to stop at the volcanic vent or chimney stage. Another remote possibility is that it would be like relieving a pressure valve and actually cause a slight reduction in global volcanic activity.

Time will tell if anything even comes of this project, much less if it has global consequences. We should know sometime in 2012.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Election Platform: Alaska Gubernatorial Race 2006

As promised, here is my platfrom for Alaska Governor as it stands at this time.

1- It is time to restore trust and integrity to Alaska State politics. To this end, the corrupt Murkowski administration must be replaced with one that will do what is good for the people of the state of Alaska rather than what is good for a few special interests as well as friends and family. This is what has motivated me to run against a fellow Republican, and an incumbent Governor at that.

2- ANWR must be opened to oil exploration and driling for the good of both the state of Alaska, and for the good of America. I will lobby the Senate ruthlesly to get them to pass a bill allowing this explorations and drilling. If they do not comply then I will do what is neccessary within the law to take ANWR back from the federal government and make it a state park instead. At this time I will authorize the oil companies to perform limited explorationan drilling on their own dime.

3- The gas pipeline must be run through Alaska in it's entirety. The Murkowski plan of running through Canada will not provide the jobs we need in this state. The Murkowski plan is one that favors the oil companies by reducing their expenses, but at the cost of Alaskan jobs. It is not a good trade.

4- The money originally slated to build the bridges acrss cook inlet must be used for that purpose. These are NOT bridges to nowhere, but bridges to a populated area that is bigger than most states. These bridges will open the area to further settlement and development, as well as recreation and tourism. To call these bridges bridges to nowhere is the same as calling the national highway systen roads to nowhere. Failure to use these funds for the bridges is not acceptable under any circumstances. It cannot be allowed to be pilfered for other projects.

5- Our commercial fishing industry is struggling right now in the face of international competetion and fish farming. Many commercial fishermen are struggling for work and are having a tough time making ends meet. The federal government has a vocation retraining program that was instituted for just this kind of circumstance. We must make this program more widely available to afford these struggling fishermen the chance to get other work so they can care for themselves and their families.

6- The Seward Highway is becoming more crowded and dangerous every sumer. For this reason we must expand it from 2 lanes to 4 lanes for it's entire length. The same should be done for the Sterling Highway. The exeptions will be where these highways run through towns and such an expansion would cost people their homes and businesses. It is wrong to take these from people, so the highways will remain unaltered by the state through these areas.

6- The Permanent Fund was not designed to be dipped into by state beaurocrats as an emergency fund to cover their fiscal irresponsibility. It must be protected, by a state Constitutional Amendment if need be to prevent it from being pillaged the way the Social Security fund was by the federal government.

7- Alaska is a very rich state. State income taxes are absolutlely unneccessary, and I will not support any measure that introduces them. Instead, I will aggressively veto wasteful spending bills, and cut unneccessary costs everywhere I can find them to bring our budget under control and go from a debtor state to a solvent state. Be aware that in order to accomplish this some social programs may have to be reduced or eliminated. Socialism is not something we can bankroll.

8- I can personally guarantee there will be no nepotism in my administartion, and since I have no political cronies at this time you can rest assured that cronyism will be minimal to nonexistent. It will be a refreshing change.

9- I am interested in connecting Alaska's towns and cities through a statewide highway system. Federal funds will need to be solicited for this if we are to keep any control over the state budget. Such a road system would open up remote areas to essential services that they currently lack, as well as opening them up for easier commerce and cheaper shipping, which would improve the quality of life for many Alaskans.

10- I have witnessed the destruction caused by bootleggers in the villages firsthand. We must provide state enforcement assistance to the villages, and penalties for bootlegging must be made severe enough to deter these crooks.

I will post updates if they come.

What are your thoughts and criticisms?

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

An Observation

I was listening to a beautiful love song on the radio th eother day. I don't know the artist, but the refrain says "How could I live without you?". As the imagery flowed through the music I realized how the song, and it's imagery changes depending on who is being sung to.

The underlying theme of love and adoration never changes. However, the pictures the song evokes does. This song is a love song from a woman to a man, and that is the typical way and image of things when a love song is heard on the radio. Also, being that love on this level is almost universally between a man an d a woman, this is the general image ost people think of when they hear a love song.

So I did a thought experiment.

I took the ong and placed in the context of spiritual worship, and without chenging anything it became a heartfelt song of praise, adoration, and dependence on God. I liked this meaning, and it got me o wondering how many songs we think are secular might be more spititual in nature.

Then I thought of it in the context of the singer singing to another woman, and my enjoyment of the song diminished as the message changed froma good one to an abberration. This got me thinking about Elton John, who has made many masterpieces, some truly fantastic love songs. He is a homosexual, and that means that, coming from him, he is singing his love to another man. Remember that pictures flow through music. This new perspective changed the pictures that flow through his love songs in such a way that, well, let's just say I don't want to listen any of his love songs anymore.

Music is a powerful tool for both art and communicating ideas. It is especially powerful among young people. So powerful that, and I don't remember exactly, but it was either Plato o Aristotle who said "Give me control of the music, and I will control the thoughts and attitudes of our youths." Be aware that this quote may not be word for word, but the meaning is exactly the same as the original if tehre are any minor variations.

This said, it really makes one wonder about the music industry. It also makes one think a litt;e harder before buying certain music.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Something Different

I am starting a new blog today. A story blog actually. I will be using it to publish a book I wrote years ago that I have no intention of attempting to have published by standard means. I like it, but it is rather juvenile attempt at a skilled craft in my own opinion. Naturally, I will continue Raving Conservative as well, just in case anyone was wondering. This is my primary blog.

I will post a new chapter every week until it is complete. If I decide to tweak a chapter and am delayed as a result I will post a notice for the week.

The book is called "The Journey". I even have sequel planned, but it will have to wait until I finish my current 2 books.

Here's the link to get you started.

  • The Journey . . . by ME!

  • There is also a link under the Fun Stuff section of my sidebar.


    Tuesday, January 10, 2006

    The Slippery Slope

    Given all of the talk here and elsewhere regarding the slippery slope of homosexual marriage, it is appropriate to discuss this slippery slope in more detail.

    Beginning with the traditional ideal of marriage meaning one man and one woman bound for life as the ideal, the start of the slippery slope is actually NOT gay marriage. It is actually fornication. By making fornication a social norm during the sexual revolution of the 1960’s we eliminated one of the key motivators for marriage itself; the motivation to have an accepted sexual relationship. To quote an old saying “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” This done, the seeds were laid for the eventual destruction of the traditional family.

    The sexual revolution has it’s roots in the feminist movement, when, under the guidance of the likes of Hugh Heffner and Larry Flynt, women became convinced that in order to be equal to men they needed to behave like men. Thus, the classic masculine feminist arose, as well as lesser breed of feminist that maintained her feminine identity while choosing to behave like a man sexually. The end result of which was the free love movement epitomized by the Hippies. Men, horndogs that we all admit to being, were only too happy to oblige the desires of these women to be as promiscuous as men wanted them to be in the first place. And why not? The very thing young men frequently desire most, a promiscuous sexual lifestyle, suddenly became a realizable dream for everyman.

    Following these movements came the no-fault divorce. This further degraded and devalued the family by allowing an easy out from the legally binding contract of marriage for any or no reason whatsoever. Prior to this atrocity the only reasons legally acceptable for a divorce were adultery, abuse, or abandonment. In al of these cases the aggrieved party was awarded everything the couple had once shared, including any children resultant from the union. This was, naturally, a great deterrent to men in particular as far as adultery and abandonment went because men really hate having everything they worked for their whole live stripped away. With the no-fault divorce the rules were completely changed until the standard practice has now become just split it all and fight over the kids no matter what happened unless you have a prenuptial agreement. Incidentally, prenuptial agreements are actually invalid in many states now because they are perceived to increase the divorce rate.

    Immediately following the no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution came a dramatic rise in single parenthood, which was followed by changes in the welfare rules to favor single parents over married couples. This eventually became a cultural norm that has many women thinking that as long they have their children they don’t need a husband. Whether this is true or not the fact remains that all children need a loving father to develop properly both socially and emotionally. An immediate result of this is the rise in misogynistic attitudes and maltreatment of women in demographic groups that have a lot of boys growing up without fathers, as well as increased homosexuality among that same group of boys due to their internalizing and sexualizing the ideal of a loving male figure that they never had while growing up. It has also resulted in massive numbers of women who have never learned how a loving man treats a woman because they never saw their daddy treat mommy in any way. They grow up confused and frequently unable to respond properly to loving advances by men, and frequently wind up being taken advantage of sexually and abused by their male partners.

    Following all of this devaluation of the traditional family unit we now have the homosexual marriage movement. So far this movement has first gained acceptance by demanding a thing called a “civil union”, which is exactly like a marriage in all but name in order to make it more palatable to the general population. This is followed by actual marriage in both title and deed.

    The next step, as we are seeing in the Netherlands, is polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy is defined as one man with multiple wives, or one woman with multiple husbands. Polyamory is defined as a group of people who are married into a relationship where everyone is married to everyone, and typically everyone is having sex with everyone. This same movement is just starting to get traction here in the US, primarily through bisexual interest groups and a sub-sect of the Unitarian Church. They intend to use almost the exact same tactics and legal arguments to get these two atrocities forced on an unwilling public as the homosexual activists have to promote their agenda. They also expect to be met with equal success, and they are probably right. What nobody is really talking about now is how when this institution comes to pas, if indeed it does, how it will utterly destroy the legal institution of marriage by creating a massive legal mess regarding the rights of individuals in marriage and divorce since the current system in utterly incapable of handling the unique problems of a polygamous or polyamorous marriage falling apart. On top of that, the very idea of traditional marriage will likely become an outdated notion in favor of a more pluralistic sexual and familial view. This is the point where the traditional family is truly destroyed.

    It doesn’t end there though. The next logical step is the legalization of incest, since history has shown that polygamy breeds incest. This will happen because for polygamy and ployamory to be legalized the legal definition of a marriage will have to be so generalized as to the persons involved in the marriage that it cannot by necessity exclude blood relations.

    The next step is, of course, pedophilia. Since marriage and sexuality will have become so pluralized by this point it will be thought to be legally unconscionable to deny a six-year old his or her right to marry a man or woman he or she loves, including mommy or daddy.

    The next step is beastial marriages. The whole idea of sex and marriage being muddled beyond by this time will result in demands by beastiacs for legal rights and protections of marriage for their relationships with the animals they are having sexual relations with. These rights will be granted.

    The final step in the utter destruction of marriage and families is the legalization of marriage to both inanimate objects and the dead. And institution so convoluted I choose not to wrap my mind around it at this time.

    This is the slippery slope of the destruction of marriage and families from beginning to end. As you can see, we are already on it, and the only way not to go farther down it is to stop it here, and to stop it now. This is why people like me are wholly opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexual civil unions, and any other legal institution that legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle. We are fighting for our families and for the American way of life as much as we are fighting for our morals and even our religions. It is a fight we cannot afford to lose.


    Many of you know that I have been battling to save my Army carreer. While I am convinced that I could save it for now, it has been made very clear to me that such a victiry will only be temporary, and that I will be destroyed one way or another.

    Therefore, I have decided to bow out gracefully and maintain some shred of dignity rather than fight and eventually be tossed out in disgrace.

    I have decided to withdraw my challenge and enter into civillian life.

    This is not a terriby big deal financialy since the jobs I qualify for pay from $60,000 to $140,000 a year to start. And regardless of my current problems, I will always have cause to be grateful to the Army since it was the Army that got me started on te college degree plan that qualifies me for these positions. It's just that I hadn't planned on taking any of these civillian jobs for another 12 years.

    Also, If I am out in time, I intend to run for Governor of Alaska. Frank Murkowski, while a Republican, is also a corrupt son of a gun, and I want him gone. I shall post my platform for governor here later in the week. This wil only happen if the election registration is still open in May.

    I believe that I will ensure one of two outcomes. Either I become Governor, or a some Democrat does. Either way, Frank Murkowski will be out of office.

    Yes, I believe I can win. What amazes me is that no one has really stepped up top challenge Frank Murkowski yet. Apparently they are all afraid of losing.

    Monday, January 09, 2006

    What Liberal Media Bias?

    Heard of this one yet? Probably not since the US was pretty much the only country that didn't cover this story. Have a taste of the stuff the liberal media doesn't want Americans to know.


    The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.

    News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media.

    Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S.

    Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.

    Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.

    Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama’s chief aides in planning the attacks.

    News Max Daily

    This seems to be an important event. Stuff like this SHOULD be reported in the US. Unfortunately, this and other similar stories are regularly swept under the rug by the MSM in this country. It is my opinion that this is done purely out of a strong liberal bias that goes so deep that the MSM would lie and misinform the American people than report ANYTHING that might make a conservative or conservative methods look good.

    I shall bring you updates on other similar unreported stories as they occur from now. I intend build a mountain of evidence to prove to liberals that the liberal media they constantly deny really does exist, and that it is rampant. Let them see that the sources of information they are using are the truly biased and decitful sources rather than the ones we consevatives use.

    Thanks to Gayle, of Gayle's Rebublican Blog, and Let Our Voices be Heard for tipping me off to this story.

    Friday, January 06, 2006

    More on the Dolphin Marriage

    I had planned on a different posting tonight, but I have decided to push it back a day in favor of a follow-up to my last article. I have decided to do a more in-depth analysis of the story of a woman marying a dolphin, and also to integrate some of the comments from the original article. I chose to go with MSNBC in an attempt to stifle any cries of conservative bias and lying sources from my liberal readers.

    JERUSALEM - Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky "guy" plunged right back.

    In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to "marry" a dolphin.

    Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.

    Call me old-fashioned, but an actual marriage ceremony, a real one, not a play act done purely for entertainment, carries a lot weight. I believe that, despite the disturbing tendency for people to divorce, wedding vows cannot be broken, at least not in the spiritual sense. To engage in such a ceromy of union with an animal is a disgusting perversion of what marriage is designed to be.

    "It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London.

    Ummmmm, yes it is.

    Tendler, who said she imports clothes and promotes rock bands in England, has visited Israel several times a year since first meeting the dolphin.

    When asked in the past if she had a boyfriend, she would always reply, "No. I'm going to end up with Cindy." On Wednesday, she made it official, sort of. While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.

    I love my dogs, but that doesn't mean I'm warped enough in th ehed to want to marry one of them.

    Reader CJB had the following to say about this:
    "This is just a crazy British woman expressing here love for her ‘pet’. Other crazy people buy ‘marriage certificates’ from MarryYourPet.com. It just shows that there are plenty of crazy people in the world."

    I totally agree with him on this point. There ARE plenty of crazy people in this world, and it seems like every one of them wants his "rights" protected in the sense that they want whatever insane thing they are inclined to do legalized and politically sanctioned. Prooof of this is seen in the homosexual community who succesfully lobbied to have homosexuality stricken from the list of mental illnesses in spite of the fact that no scientific or phychiatric evidence supported this move, and in spite of the fact that mounting scientific and psychiatric evidence indicates that really IS a phycholocal abberration rather than a biological drive.

    This is, of course, totaly denied by the homosexual activists, their advocates, and their allies.

    This also begs the question of how long it will take for people to use the exact same arguments of "what happens in my bed is none of your concern" to successfully defend acts of pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, sexual torture, and other abberrant behaviors.

    "It's not a bad thing. It’s just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It's just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said.

    Ummmm, yes it is.

    While she still kept open the option of "marrying human" at some stage, she said for now she was strictly a "one-dolphin woman."

    Well, at least she's fathful.

    She's hardly the jealous type, though.

    "He will still play with all the other girls there," she said, of their prenuptial agreement. "I hope he has a lot of baby dolphins with the other dolphins. The more dolphins the better."

    A woman who doesn't mind if her husband makes babies with other women? Where can I getm me one of those? better yet, where can I get me about twenty of those. I feel a bout of polygamy coming on! (Sarcasm)

    An anonymous reader left this comment due to some confusion regarding whether the dolphin "Cindy" was a male or a female.

    "I searched 'woman dolphin' in Fox News and found both the O'Reilly article and the Associated Press piece. In the O'Reilly one, he did say that it was a female. But in the Associated Press piece, it said that it was a male. The quotes in the AP story made it seem like the dolphin was definitely male. Either way, the sex of the dolphin seems insignificant, really."

    This is very true. It really doesn't matter what the sex of the dolphin is . . . IT'S A DOLPHIN! regardless of gender interspecies marriage is just insane and unnatural. Does anyone here truly believe that there will never be a push for such marriage sto legalized?

    Let me answer for you. There already is, and there is an equal push to legalize polygamy, and to legalize pedophile marriage as well. These movements, while young and small, have modeled themselves after the homosexual movement and plan on using the exact same legal arguments and political tactics to push their agenda on America th eway the homosexuals are doing now. One such group, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has the ACLU fighting for it already.

    Thursday, January 05, 2006

    The Fruits of Gay Marriage

    I am opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexual civil unions, and every other form of government sponsorship of this aberrant behavior. I, like many who are opposed to homosexual marriage, have been saying how allowing homosexuals to marry will legitimize every other lunatic who wants to marry into an unnatural or unethical relationship.

    The first proof of this is a man in the Netherlands who married two women at the same time. While polygamy is accepted in some cultures, and even encouraged in others, this next situation is almost universally condemned.

    A British woman has just married a female dolphin.

    What the (expletive deleted)?

    I had a debate few months ago on the liberal website “A Beginner’s Mind”, which you will find linked under the Worthy Opponents section of my sidebar. In it I claimed that allowing homosexual marriage would allow people to marry into any bizarre and unnatural relationship they wanted, to include bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, and possibly even marriage to inanimate objects. The first proof that my assertions were correct came in the form of the polygamous marriage in the Netherlands. Now the next step in unnatural aberration has been taken and someone has married an animal. And not just any animal, but one of the same sex as well. This is a homosexual bestiality marriage. All I can say is “wow”.

    Homosexual marriage has been legal in England for, what, two months, maybe less? Even more bizarre marriages are already popping up, as this insane marriage between woman and dolphin has proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Can anyone in his or her right mind, including the most rabid liberals, call this a good thing that we should condone?

    In my debate over at A Beginner’s Mind the liberals I was debating said flat-out that it was not possible that we would go so far as to allow unnatural marriages between humans and anything that could not reasonably be expected to give proper consent. I told them to keep their eyes and ears open and just see what would happen in the places where homosexual mariage was legalized. This case has proven them all terribly wrong, and it is my hope that it would serve as a wake-up call to the entire liberal community that legitimizing ANY aberrant relationship is a gateway to legitimizing ALL aberrant relationships. If this won’t convince them then I am convinced that they are deluded beyond the point of reason.

    The thing that really stabs me to the core is that the dolphin is in an Israeli aquarium. I don’t know everything about international law, but is this bizarre marriage even legal under international law? Is the dolphin considered an Israeli citizen for the purposes of this marriage, or is it a citizen of no nation, or even, due the fact that is not human, a citizen of whatever nation desires to claim it? The international quality of this aberration adds so much more strangeness to the mix that it boggles the mind. Is it possible that someone could marry this same dolphin? What happens in the event of a divorce? If the Israelis breed this dolphin is it considered adultery? Is the woman who married this dolphin entitled to a sexual relationship with the dolphin? Is the woman who married the dolphin entitled to move the creature to England so she can be with her wife? What happens if the Israelis release the dolphin back into the wild?

    I repeat, what the (expletive deleted)?

    Stay tuned folks. It’s only a matter of time before some thirty-year-old marries a nine-year-old or two somewhere in the civilized world. Don’t think it won’t happen. If a woman can enter a homosexual trans-species marriage, someone else can enter a polygamous pedophiliac marriage.

    Wednesday, January 04, 2006

    I Want My $100,000

    This post has been removed at the insistence of my wife.

    Tuesday, January 03, 2006

    The Seven Meme

    M. Brandon Robbins tagged me for a different meme than the last one I responded to. Being a good sport I am happy to oblige on all but one count. I will not pass this one on. Having recently passed on a tag myself I am choosing not to annoy my conservative blogging buddies with another one so soon. I won’t bother tagging any liberals because none of them responded to the last tag I sent out.

    This said, let’s dig in!

    A. Seven things to do before I die.

    1. The Lord’s will for my life.
    2. Ummm . . . actually, the only thing I really NEED to do is number 1. All else is either unachievable wishful thinking, is purely optional and I could live without it, or else I have done it. So let 3-7 be wishful thinking.
    3. Write the #2 best selling book of all time. The Bible is #1, and while I am a decent writer I’m not #2 of all time good.
    4. End world hunger.
    5. Wipe out disease.
    6. Terraform a planet for human colonization.
    7. What? No world peace? Heck no! The only two people who will pull that off are the Antichrist for about 3 years before starting the worst war in all of history, then Jesus Christ for all eternity. I am not Jesus, and I don’t want to be the Antichrist.

    B. Seven things I cannot do.

    1. Compromise my morals.
    2. Betray anyone.
    3. Harm anyone for personal gain.
    4. Abandon my faith.
    5. Stay silent in the face of injustice.
    6. Hit a woman.
    7. Remember where I put my hat.

    C. Seven things that attract me to (…)
    (Alaska, just to be different.)

    1. The people are great.
    2. The fishing is fantastic.
    3. The hunting is fantastic.
    4. The land is beautiful.
    5. The air is clean.
    6. The water is clean.
    7. The fishing. Yes, said this before, but it so big for me that it bears repeating.

    D. Seven things I say most often.

    1. Amen.
    2. I love you. (To my family.)
    3. Yes.
    4. No.
    5. Now where did I put my hat?
    6. Let me tell you about . . .
    7. Not now . . . I’m writing.

    E. Seven books or Series that I love.

    1. The Bible!
    2. Jaws.
    3. Anything by Michael Crichton.
    4. Anything by R.A. Salvatore.
    5. The Shannara series.
    6. Incarnations of Immortality.
    7. The Deathgate cycle.

    F. Seven movies I watch over and over again.

    1. Hackers.
    2. Jurassic Park.
    3. The Incredibles.
    4. Willow.
    5. The Thing.
    6. Little Shop of Horrors.
    7. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

    G. Seven People I want to join in, too

    Oh, I won’t be passing this one along for the reasons previously stated.

    Monday, January 02, 2006

    Social Security

    As people mature they are entitled to change their minds about issues, and I have recently found occasion to change my mind on a big one.

    For most of my life I have seen social security as anything but secure, and as an unneeded tax burden that had to be phased out. Now I’m not so sure.

    As I have studied the issue more deeply I find that social security is more akin to a form of government retirement fund than a forced charity. The concept is you pay in for most of your life, and then draw out for your golden years. While this still makes only a little sense to me at this time I do see the benefit for those who genuinely need it.

    Let’s face it, most Americans are too busy trying to make ends meet and still have some recreation on the side to fund a retirement on their own. This is especially true of the lower income brackets. The simple fact is that an unsettling number of Americans would never use the money they pay into social security to build a retirement fund. O do away with social security would be to place the people who need it most in a situation where they will spend their declining years wholly destitute. This is the very thing that social security was designed to prevent.

    So the question then becomes; how do we shore up social security to guarantee it will still be there when my generation needs it? How about when my grandchildren need it? And what about their grandchildren? See, when making long term plans it is important to think of the consequences of our action beyond our own immediate needs.

    I don’t have all the answers right now. One day I hope to, and if I don’t then I need to find somebody who can fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle. But I do have one suggestion. To my knowledge everybody gets social security once they reach the appropriate age regardless of personal wealth. It might help out to cut the social security benefits off entirely for those who have amassed enough wealth do without it comfortably. Hypothetically speaking, in today’s dollars that would be say . . . one million dollars net worth, not counting one personal residence. This number is probably actually a bit low, but the beauty comes in when that person’s net worth drops below the set mark then social security will kick in.

    Obviously there will be abuses of a system that is set up this way, but I would probably be right to say that those abuses would only come from people who are near the mark. People with significantly more than the maximum worth would be crazy to forfeit an entire fortune just to get a check from the government every month.

    I don’t know what the maximum net worth of a person should be before social security gets cut off, but I know there is one that is fair and workable. The mystery in this piece of the plan is just how much that is.

    I’m no economist. I just have a basic working knowledge of economics, enough to keep from being bamboozled by any but the most skilled con-men. But that’s okay. A man in authority is supposed to surround himself with experts in every pertinent field, including economics. That’s exactly what I intend to do should I ever pull off the most unlikely stunt of all time by becoming President of the United States of America.

    I will look deeper into the issue of social security as the years go on, and I hope to find more workable solutions to shore up social security for generations to come without it becoming too great a burden to bear. If it ever does become too much for the American people then the government would be forced to cut it or drive our nation into generalized poverty. We can not allow this to happen. We must find a solution, and we must find it before it becomes a crisis.

    Listed on BlogShares