There is an effort in the leftist circles to make trouble for the successful fast food outfit, Chick-Fil-A. Apparently this company, a private enterprise in the United States of America, is brash enough to promote, of all things, CHRISTIAN VALUES! And it gets worse. One franchise went so far to DONATE some chicken sandwiches to a PRO-FAMILY organization! This must be STOPPED...according to the socialist, atheist, sniveling cowards on the left.
On a daily, perhaps hourly basis, Americans are bombarded with media messages that glorify the gay lifestyle, presenting it as pervasive and as common place as a straight existence. The gay lifestyle is by far the minority practice of sexual orientation but that fact is buried by what is seen and read in the American media.
Ironically, if a person or business has a Christian, Pro-Traditional values bent, THEY are marginalized. They are played as the oddball, out-of-step, backward thinking tool. The American media spin presents Christian values as a small fringe group who are the minority that SHOULD be condemned.
If a private organization like Disney can have "Gay Days" in their parks (which is their right) then a private company like Chick-Fil-A should be just as welcome to promote Christian values and give free sandwiches, corporate sponsorship or scholarships to whomever they chose. When Disney promotes a day for gay people, that does not equate them to being anti-heterosexual, does it?
Chick-Fil-A can promote Christian values and has the freedom to support traditional groups who champion a mother/father family unit WITHOUT being Anti-Gay. Why does the left want to conflate support of tradition as proof of discrimination against gays? Methinks the left can not win if they have to face honest examples of lifestyle choices. The left feigns open-mindedness while in fact being the most suppressive, one-mind, movement there is.
Chick-Fil-A is not a Government agency and has the legal right to be selective where their profits go. Their corporate tax dollars are SURELY going to fund things the company would probably never support like Planned Parenthood but that's the law regarding tax dollars. From what I know, Chick-Fil-A pays their taxes.
The left is against all Government funding of organizations that hold Christian beliefs but if the worship is the religion of secularism, in the world of the hypocritical left, that's okay to take peoples tax money to fund. For pimps and under aged prostitutes, the left offers helpful advice to continue operation. Protection of minors at the hands of pedophiles? Not so much.
The left can squawk all they want against Chick-Fil-A and companies like them but it would be nice if reality were used in their complaints. My first request would be for the left to make up their minds! Are they pro-gay or pro-Islamist extremists? The same left wing activist can be read or heard within the same day backing both causes.
Hello! The two can not be supported by the same person with any amount of intellectual honesty or mental stability. What's next, a ban on all B-B-Q joints since they discriminate against Muslims by daring to serve PORK? This is why I question what is REALLY at the heart of the Left's duplicitous "support" for gays, Islamist extremists, stealth abortion outfits (where minority girls and babies are the number one clients). But remember, the left is always working for the benefit of minorities and women. NOT!
The only thing that is clear is the fact the left is deathly afraid of the Christian message. The left knows as long as a Christian mindset exists to the level it does now, they will never control the masses like the cattle they imagine the masses to be. The left knows that no matter how cool and slick they package their agenda, the juxtaposition of a leftist role model such as Hugo Chavez, Barney Frank, Cindy Sheehan or any of the Hollywood train wrecks du jour, against the lives led by people such as the golfer, David Feherty, actor, Gary Sinise, Florida Congressman, Allen West or South Dakota Congresswoman, Kristi Noem, is a no-win for the left.
Many more people, not all, but a considerable majority of Americans would chose to be like the later than the former. Of course, there are plenty of "Christians" in the public eye who are not so admirable but they are either phonies using the cache of Christian to make money or honest Christians who are struggling with their personal demons (who isn't?) as a celebrity for all to see.
At the end of the day, the left is free to be WRONG when they paint Chick-Fil-A as Anti-Gay. Being wrong is not a crime. Most Americans know that being for Christian values does not equal discrimination against Gays just as pro-Gay action should not be viewed as Anti-Traditional Family. Let the cases for all stances be honestly presented. Free-thinking people will make their own determinations from the facts.
As for me, all this has made me hungry. Chicken sandwich here I come! Of course, if I discover any of the chickens used to make the sandwiches were actually lesbian chickens, I may have to re-evaluate this whole argument. Cluck off!
Showing posts with label Gays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gays. Show all posts
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Is Obama A Fairy Godmother Or Fairy Hitman?
And with a swoosh of his magic wand-pen, all people can FINALLY execute their military missions without the huge burden of maintaining personal privacy. Thank you Fairy GodObama. This is such a milestone for humanity. To think how improved military missions will be now that people can openly proclaim their preferences of penile insertion and vaginal stimulation. AWESOME and oh so important to the job of defending our country.
I shake my head at this high school drama playing out before me. Are adults in our society so desperate for affirmation that they will settle for some piece of paper decreeing their personal lives are valid and worthy of announcing such to the immediate world? Next thing you know, Michelle Obama will tell us that as First Lady, she feels she can only fulfill her duties by letting us all know she prefers bedding Obama on top with arugula on the side. Since when exactly did a person's private sex acts define their ability to be a soldier, a teacher, a Senator, a First Lady?
The juvenile rationale for this whole crap about serving openly gay is almost laughable if it weren't so serious for a myriad of reasons. First and foremost, where does being openly gay fit within a combat setting, on foreign soil where civil rights are non-existent? When the first openly gay soldier is taken prisoner and asked if he is a homosexual, will he be copping to the classification of "gay and proud" then?
The reality is, no openly gay personnel will be assigned to combat. That deal was worked out long ago. However, the fact remains, for our enemy, whether gays in the military are in battle or behind a desk is irrelevant and serves yet as another tool for them in recruiting young Islamist followers in their cause against the GREAT SATAN. Already the Islamist websites are using acceptance of gays in our military to point out America's debauchery, lack of God's law and poisoned culture that must be defeated at all costs.
What sort of cultural victory has the repeal of DADT truly resulted in? If the defining aspect of a person and their ability to pursue their career hinges on everyone's knowledge regarding the way they achieve the momentary effect of an orgasm, I suggest that individual has not emotionally matured past adolescence and shouldn't be driving a bus let alone wielding a firearm in combat.
Much like the teens on Facebook who document every moment of their lives by tweets, profile updates and instant uploads of digital pictures featuring important subjects like picking their noses and feces shaped like Italy, the willingness to relinquish all personal privacy to the world is stunning.
One has to wonder why the government is so keen on folks openly admitting their sexual practices? Are the Socialists in our government, the people bent on a Utopian society, truly interested in promoting the validity of a gay lifestyle or is this some other means to a yet undefined end? In all of the socialist, nationalist societies prior to Obama, the weeding out of deviants and the less productive members of the regimes own ranks were the first order of business upon coming to power.
Could all this celebration of "sexual transparency" be just a tool to identify the "problems" within their ranks at a later date? This is exactly what happened in Russia. Homosexuality was decriminalized after the fall of the Czar only to be RE-criminalized under Joseph Stalin who also saw to it that abortion was criminalized as well. Stalin said homosexuality was a far-right conspiracy even though the Communist Revolution "supported" homosexual rights in the beginning. The sentence for having same-sex relations under Stalin was hard labor of at least 5 years. These laws stayed on the books in Russia until the fall of the USSR. And the dude hanging on Obama's Christmas tree, sweet, kind, old Mao Tse Tung wasn't a big fan of same-sex stuff either.
So as the gays in the military celebrate their new found public persona, I caution all about your Fairy Godmother. This may be trite, but it is a saying that too often is right...Be Careful What You Wish For. And even more careful whom it is granting it.
I shake my head at this high school drama playing out before me. Are adults in our society so desperate for affirmation that they will settle for some piece of paper decreeing their personal lives are valid and worthy of announcing such to the immediate world? Next thing you know, Michelle Obama will tell us that as First Lady, she feels she can only fulfill her duties by letting us all know she prefers bedding Obama on top with arugula on the side. Since when exactly did a person's private sex acts define their ability to be a soldier, a teacher, a Senator, a First Lady?
The juvenile rationale for this whole crap about serving openly gay is almost laughable if it weren't so serious for a myriad of reasons. First and foremost, where does being openly gay fit within a combat setting, on foreign soil where civil rights are non-existent? When the first openly gay soldier is taken prisoner and asked if he is a homosexual, will he be copping to the classification of "gay and proud" then?
The reality is, no openly gay personnel will be assigned to combat. That deal was worked out long ago. However, the fact remains, for our enemy, whether gays in the military are in battle or behind a desk is irrelevant and serves yet as another tool for them in recruiting young Islamist followers in their cause against the GREAT SATAN. Already the Islamist websites are using acceptance of gays in our military to point out America's debauchery, lack of God's law and poisoned culture that must be defeated at all costs.
What sort of cultural victory has the repeal of DADT truly resulted in? If the defining aspect of a person and their ability to pursue their career hinges on everyone's knowledge regarding the way they achieve the momentary effect of an orgasm, I suggest that individual has not emotionally matured past adolescence and shouldn't be driving a bus let alone wielding a firearm in combat.
Much like the teens on Facebook who document every moment of their lives by tweets, profile updates and instant uploads of digital pictures featuring important subjects like picking their noses and feces shaped like Italy, the willingness to relinquish all personal privacy to the world is stunning.
One has to wonder why the government is so keen on folks openly admitting their sexual practices? Are the Socialists in our government, the people bent on a Utopian society, truly interested in promoting the validity of a gay lifestyle or is this some other means to a yet undefined end? In all of the socialist, nationalist societies prior to Obama, the weeding out of deviants and the less productive members of the regimes own ranks were the first order of business upon coming to power.
Could all this celebration of "sexual transparency" be just a tool to identify the "problems" within their ranks at a later date? This is exactly what happened in Russia. Homosexuality was decriminalized after the fall of the Czar only to be RE-criminalized under Joseph Stalin who also saw to it that abortion was criminalized as well. Stalin said homosexuality was a far-right conspiracy even though the Communist Revolution "supported" homosexual rights in the beginning. The sentence for having same-sex relations under Stalin was hard labor of at least 5 years. These laws stayed on the books in Russia until the fall of the USSR. And the dude hanging on Obama's Christmas tree, sweet, kind, old Mao Tse Tung wasn't a big fan of same-sex stuff either.
So as the gays in the military celebrate their new found public persona, I caution all about your Fairy Godmother. This may be trite, but it is a saying that too often is right...Be Careful What You Wish For. And even more careful whom it is granting it.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Being Openly Gay In The Military Does Not Equal Being Happy
Keeping up with liberal societal demands and politically correct mores is so difficult. Women in the military are not to be distinguished as "female" soldiers. They put their lives on the line just like their male counterparts and want to be addressed simply as "soldier", no gender recognition, please! But if you are sexually attracted to your own gender then by all means, scream it from the rooftops...Gay soldier, gay soldier, gay soldier... at ease, Ms. Thing.
This whole false issue regarding gays in the military is not about fairness. It is about diluting the effectiveness of our National Defense. The left lives in the strangest world where constant self-contradictions really don't matter. For instance, the left has professors in college classrooms declaring the power of human sexuality, how its effects on our actions and focus are overwhelming and most importantly, involuntary.
I once had a professor show the class a still shot of an attractive girl just sitting there expressionless. He asked students in the room to raise their hands if they found her physically pleasing. Everyone, male and female, raised their hands. Then he asked if anyone was sexually aroused. One guy's hand shot up to a roar of laughter.
Next he showed a video of the same girl simply brushing her hair. She was not doing it in any sort of seductive manner. Her expression remained neutral as she simply sat there brushing her long dark hair. The professor asked if anyone now was sexually aroused. Several male students hesitantly raised their hands. The video went from the girl with a neutral expression to the girl smiling as she brushed her hair. More hands went up, including the professor's!
He apologized for only stimulating the male segment of the class but his point was that the physical reactions to human sexual attraction are totally involuntary, proving the reason why sex sells. Sexual attraction captivates your attention and takes you to another part of your brain without any effort or control on your part.
Before that experience I didn't KNOW males could be aroused by something as mundane as brushing my hair. I will admit after that I never brushed my hair in public again. The mere thought of some strange man having an involuntary sexual response to a non-sexual action truly grossed me out as a young woman. Now I just laugh at how easily distracted males are by sex.
So, if I'm to take that liberal educator seriously, how can I honestly expect individuals to serve side by side in dangerous situations and deal effectively with physical reactions they have no control over? In fact, if you've been a human being for any stretch of time (that means you liberals too), you will know that when a person "catches your eye" your focus, no matter what you are doing, changes. Any traffic cop will attest to the fact that a large number of male drivers in single car accidents are caused by the male watching some girl walk down the street instead of focusing on driving.
On the other side of the gender spectrum, I've witnessed girls basketball teams completely come unraveled when their male classmates show up to watch them play in a game. The boys' presence made the girls so nervous that a usually rock solid team became a bunch of fumbling, bumbling, giggling twits. The amazing part was that none of the boys who came were love interests of any of the girls on the team. They didn't have to be, the mere fact the girls knew these potential dates were there to observe them was enough to put the girls heads everywhere but the game.
Fact: Human sexuality plays a part on one's ability to focus no matter what your orientation. If someone who is known to be sexually attracted to "your kind" is present, the dynamics change ever so slightly. In a combat situation, slightly matters.
Beyond this basic truth about human sexuality, what sort of person signs up voluntarily for the military in order to express their individuality? Did you not get the memo? Military service is not a career in the arts. It's a mission that specifically requires all prospective soldiers to check their individuality at the door. If a straight person enters the military demanding to leave their hair long and wear t shirts with slogans they personally believe in instead of the uniform fatigues because "that is who they are", they'd be booted out the door day one.
Recently a long serving soldier was indicted for not following orders and sentenced to three years in jail. He refused to report for duty based on his personal belief that President Obama has not proven that he is an American citizen. Under that belief, this career soldier did not see Obama's presidential order for him to return to Afghanistan as valid.
Sorry dude, you are in the military, an order is an order and that is what you signed up for. Your personal doubts about Obama's birthplace is not up for discussion in a military setting. This soldier was expressing his political orientation yet his expression was rightly squelched. As a private citizen he can think what he wants but as a soldier in the United States Military, such personal expressions are detrimental to military morale and chain of command.
Gay soldiers have been in the military since such service began. Those that serve without needing the acknowledgement of their sexual orientation are the people who truly understand and respect the military mission. That is why Don't Ask, Don't Tell is legitimate and fair. The gay soldiers, however, who feel their mode of sexual act defines them to such an extent that it must be made known to all around them strike me as people with an agenda other than military mission success.
And what about the left constantly concerned about how we are viewed by the Muslim world? Last time I checked, being gay is a grave sin within the tenets of Islam. Muslims do not believe a person is born gay, they chose it. In Iran, homosexuals are routinely executed. I guess that is why Ahmadinejad so confidently proclaimed that they have no homosexual problem in Iran because they don't have homosexuals there. You got that right Ahmie!
And so the left trumps up this issue of supporting gay soldiers to serve openly as homosexuals with zero concern how the Muslim world will percieve this? The left made sure female soldiers did not oversee the prisoners at Gitmo because having a woman oversee them was a personal affront to them. Will the left see to it no gay soldiers oversee Muslim war prisoners as well? Which side of that one will you chose oh all-knowing Marxist goons?
The left is very sensitive to how our military behaves within the Muslim culture, except, I guess when it comes to acts considered by Muslims as sexually deviant and evil. With this issue, the left brazenly ignores Muslim sensibilities because at the end of the day, the left could care less about Muslim sensibilities unless those sensibilities play into the Marxist goal of weakening America. Intellectual consistency is not the left's forte and neither is their loyalty to the Islamic world or gays for that matter.
All things considered, openly gay American military soldiers will result in either morale problems in combat units or an unwritten rule that the openly gay soldiers do not get assigned to combat situations. As long as the United States Military is a volunteer force, the issue of openly gay soldiers serving is an intellectually dishonest, political leftist ploy meant to harm the United States Military, not enhance it. That's not pro-gay, that's just sad.
This whole false issue regarding gays in the military is not about fairness. It is about diluting the effectiveness of our National Defense. The left lives in the strangest world where constant self-contradictions really don't matter. For instance, the left has professors in college classrooms declaring the power of human sexuality, how its effects on our actions and focus are overwhelming and most importantly, involuntary.
I once had a professor show the class a still shot of an attractive girl just sitting there expressionless. He asked students in the room to raise their hands if they found her physically pleasing. Everyone, male and female, raised their hands. Then he asked if anyone was sexually aroused. One guy's hand shot up to a roar of laughter.
Next he showed a video of the same girl simply brushing her hair. She was not doing it in any sort of seductive manner. Her expression remained neutral as she simply sat there brushing her long dark hair. The professor asked if anyone now was sexually aroused. Several male students hesitantly raised their hands. The video went from the girl with a neutral expression to the girl smiling as she brushed her hair. More hands went up, including the professor's!
He apologized for only stimulating the male segment of the class but his point was that the physical reactions to human sexual attraction are totally involuntary, proving the reason why sex sells. Sexual attraction captivates your attention and takes you to another part of your brain without any effort or control on your part.
Before that experience I didn't KNOW males could be aroused by something as mundane as brushing my hair. I will admit after that I never brushed my hair in public again. The mere thought of some strange man having an involuntary sexual response to a non-sexual action truly grossed me out as a young woman. Now I just laugh at how easily distracted males are by sex.
So, if I'm to take that liberal educator seriously, how can I honestly expect individuals to serve side by side in dangerous situations and deal effectively with physical reactions they have no control over? In fact, if you've been a human being for any stretch of time (that means you liberals too), you will know that when a person "catches your eye" your focus, no matter what you are doing, changes. Any traffic cop will attest to the fact that a large number of male drivers in single car accidents are caused by the male watching some girl walk down the street instead of focusing on driving.
On the other side of the gender spectrum, I've witnessed girls basketball teams completely come unraveled when their male classmates show up to watch them play in a game. The boys' presence made the girls so nervous that a usually rock solid team became a bunch of fumbling, bumbling, giggling twits. The amazing part was that none of the boys who came were love interests of any of the girls on the team. They didn't have to be, the mere fact the girls knew these potential dates were there to observe them was enough to put the girls heads everywhere but the game.
Fact: Human sexuality plays a part on one's ability to focus no matter what your orientation. If someone who is known to be sexually attracted to "your kind" is present, the dynamics change ever so slightly. In a combat situation, slightly matters.
Beyond this basic truth about human sexuality, what sort of person signs up voluntarily for the military in order to express their individuality? Did you not get the memo? Military service is not a career in the arts. It's a mission that specifically requires all prospective soldiers to check their individuality at the door. If a straight person enters the military demanding to leave their hair long and wear t shirts with slogans they personally believe in instead of the uniform fatigues because "that is who they are", they'd be booted out the door day one.
Recently a long serving soldier was indicted for not following orders and sentenced to three years in jail. He refused to report for duty based on his personal belief that President Obama has not proven that he is an American citizen. Under that belief, this career soldier did not see Obama's presidential order for him to return to Afghanistan as valid.
Sorry dude, you are in the military, an order is an order and that is what you signed up for. Your personal doubts about Obama's birthplace is not up for discussion in a military setting. This soldier was expressing his political orientation yet his expression was rightly squelched. As a private citizen he can think what he wants but as a soldier in the United States Military, such personal expressions are detrimental to military morale and chain of command.
Gay soldiers have been in the military since such service began. Those that serve without needing the acknowledgement of their sexual orientation are the people who truly understand and respect the military mission. That is why Don't Ask, Don't Tell is legitimate and fair. The gay soldiers, however, who feel their mode of sexual act defines them to such an extent that it must be made known to all around them strike me as people with an agenda other than military mission success.
And what about the left constantly concerned about how we are viewed by the Muslim world? Last time I checked, being gay is a grave sin within the tenets of Islam. Muslims do not believe a person is born gay, they chose it. In Iran, homosexuals are routinely executed. I guess that is why Ahmadinejad so confidently proclaimed that they have no homosexual problem in Iran because they don't have homosexuals there. You got that right Ahmie!
And so the left trumps up this issue of supporting gay soldiers to serve openly as homosexuals with zero concern how the Muslim world will percieve this? The left made sure female soldiers did not oversee the prisoners at Gitmo because having a woman oversee them was a personal affront to them. Will the left see to it no gay soldiers oversee Muslim war prisoners as well? Which side of that one will you chose oh all-knowing Marxist goons?
The left is very sensitive to how our military behaves within the Muslim culture, except, I guess when it comes to acts considered by Muslims as sexually deviant and evil. With this issue, the left brazenly ignores Muslim sensibilities because at the end of the day, the left could care less about Muslim sensibilities unless those sensibilities play into the Marxist goal of weakening America. Intellectual consistency is not the left's forte and neither is their loyalty to the Islamic world or gays for that matter.
All things considered, openly gay American military soldiers will result in either morale problems in combat units or an unwritten rule that the openly gay soldiers do not get assigned to combat situations. As long as the United States Military is a volunteer force, the issue of openly gay soldiers serving is an intellectually dishonest, political leftist ploy meant to harm the United States Military, not enhance it. That's not pro-gay, that's just sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)