Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for March, 2013

Here is an Argument Not Heard Yet


Will Same Sex Marriage Undermine Obama’s Loyal Muslim Outreach ?

“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes” Quran 26:165

Not much has been reported on our Commander in Chief’s recent rocky expedition to meet the gods of “Big Oil.” I wonder if same sex marriage was discussed with Islamic leaders during President Obama’s recent trip to the Middle East. Probably not, since any talk of sanctioning homosexuality in Muslims circles might be cause for killing another U.S. Ambassador or fostering another unprovoked attack on America.

If we take the President’s assertions—claiming Guantanamo breeds Islamic aggression—seriously, wait until the world’s Islamic radicals sink their teeth into Big Satan’s coming normalization of deviant sexual behavior and same sex marriages. Wow, this is really going to put a kink in NASA’s efforts to normalize and expand President Barrack Hussein Obama’s U.S. Muslim outreach.

Personally, I have grown weary of the ongoing and relentless discussion distracting America from the long term social consequences of same sex marriage. However, given last night’s Fox News Bill O’Reilly debacle, I just wanted to highlight some easily forgotten realities for America’s compassionate conservatives and their LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) friends and family.

“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to” Quran 26:165

In case liberals have forgotten, the United States is at war with Islam. Islamists the world over despise America for its willingness to protect and defend morally repugnant behavior like Christianity, Judaism, and yes, LGBT lifestyles. I find it remarkably naive of the LGBT community to believe that Democrats, and their political messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama, are promising to deliver same sex marriage guarantees while attempting to corner the market on Muslim constituents. Hmmm.

The Quran explicitly condemns homosexual behavior. Enlightened American opinions and attitudes, diluted by an addiction for tolerance and fairness, have begun to accept LGBT lifestyles and gay marriage advocacy, but Muslims will always, by tradition, never accept the polishing of the gay image. Remember, there are no social or political ties for homosexuals in an Islamic society. There are no special interest lobbies nor media supported tolerance of gay advocacy, just punishment, torture and summary executions. Just ask Iran’s Ahmadinejad.  Somehow, that soon to be nuclear nation has managed to defy liberal ideological claims that sexual proclivity is not an acquired taste, but a product of birth.

Islam views homosexuality as an enemy. Muslims will never accept sophisticated and multifaceted liberal campaigns to change their core beliefs and views on sexual behavior and marriage. They laugh at American Psychiatric Association declarations removing homosexuality from the list of confirmed mental disorders. No, no, Islam is a stalwart defender of God’s natural law over scientific hypothesis and America’s LGBT communities fight for equal rights will come with a heavy price one day.

Liberalisms perfection of the “moral dodge” has swelled the ranks of Obama’s Democrat Party who have been courting Muslims since the times of Clinton and Gore. As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. However, if I were a homosexual’ the last thing I would want to do is to climb in bed with an Islamist. That would be a very brief and painful dalliance.

President Obama is a man of great ideological conflicts. His masterful use of the “divide and conquer” strategy is well documented. Given his Islamic sympathies and his growing public embrace of the “great religion of Islam,” how will he, and more importantly, how will the Democrats soothe the moral conflict waiting to be revealed once same sex marriage and transgender parenting become the new American constitutional norm. Allah Akbar!

Perhaps Bill O’Reilly and his bubble headed bleach blond should have taken the time to examine the Muslim argument against same sex marriage instead of giving the Bible a good thumping. After all, Fox is in part owned by a Saudi Arab, so I’m sure the crew at fair and balanced television could provide a unique perspective on Islam’s genocidal relationship with homosexuality. Not to mention their support for the coming evaporation of morality in our Islamic tolerant liberal society. What say you Bill?

Are We Moving Towards a Post U.S. World?


PPERKINSARTThe U.S. government has made all the wrong moves.  The temporary economic boon coupled with weak employment numbers should be the first signal to Americans that something is seriously wrong.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is still printing money despite dramatic improvements in the market.  Why?  The answer is simple.  It cannot stop now.  Ben Bernanke’s currency manipulation has improved the appearance of the stock market by weakening the dollar.  Wall Street is making record profits, but the value of American money is slipping into oblivion.

This central planning method is not new.  These were the same tactics tried in Germany’s Weimar Republic from 1919 to 1923.  That horror story ended with the price of a loaf of bread rising from 1 mark to 100 billion marks.  Since we have three more years to try out the most failed system in U.S. history, you might want to trade in your wallet for a wheelbarrow.  Thank you, Mr. President.

While the Federal Reserve, President Obama, and Rachel Maddow remain clueless on what is happening to the U.S. economy, China seems fully aware. The unending episodes of quantitative easing (the practice of printing money that can cause short-term stimulus but weakens the dollar in the long run) combined with massive amounts of debt have destroyed the credibility of the dollar and the world is taking notice.

In an attempt to shield itself from the risks of trading with the U.S. dollar, the Chinese government is now trading in its own currency.  Last week, an unprecedented 30 billion dollar trade deal with Brazil signified the world’s growing insecurity over the dollar.  China and Brazil are members of BRICS (a partnership of nations including Brazil, Russian, India, China and South Africa).  The BRICS nations announced their own development bank this week, another attempt to circumvent western influence from the World Bank.

The U.S. government is weakening the dollar with its policies while completely ignoring these developments and another phenomenon overtaking the markets, the China gold rush.  Even Bernanke seems unconcerned that China is hoping to move to a gold backed currency soon.  He sees the gold standard as an “awful waste of resources.”

This is definitely not the Chinese attitude.  Former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Hu Jintao, called the current international currency system a “product of the past.”  China’s game is not all talk and Americans should be concerned.  Chinese foreign currency reserves have shot up 700% since 2004 and currently stand large enough to buy all of the world’s gold bullion…twice.

While gold was down this week, the Chinese and Russian buying frenzy continued.  It is expected that China will reveal by 2014 that they have acquired more than 4000 tons of gold in just the past few years.  This will see China at the same gold-to-GDP ratio as the United States and potentially triple gold prices by 2015.

If the weakening dollar doesn’t concern you, the military situation might.  While the U.S. is neglecting its military advancements, China is quickly catching up.  The old argument was, China has the numbers, but they don’t have the technology to be a dominant force against the U.S.  This is far less true than it was a few decades ago.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently admitted China is modernizing its military at an alarming pace:


“They clearly have the potential to put some of our capabilities at risk. And we have to pay attention to them, we have to respond appropriately with our own programs,” Gates said on a 2011 visit to Beijing.  “My hope is that, through the strategic dialogue that I’m talking about, that maybe the need for some of these capabilities is reduced.”


Essentially, Gates is relying on a strategy of friendship with the Chinese government in hopes that they will continue to let us dominate the western pacific.  This continues a foreign policy methodology of complete ignorance.  The new general secretary, Xi Jinping, has begun to promote a message called, “the China Dream” which advocates Chinese military superiority over the United States.  This does not sound like a message of friendship, it sounds adversarial.

The weakening of the dollar by the Federal Reserve, the whimsical hippie foreign policy of the White House, and the degradation of our culture at the hands of the progressive movement, all add up to one question: Is this a post U.S. world?  Time will tell, but unfortunately we won’t have to wait long to find the answer.

We Pray That You Have the Most Blessed Resurrection Sunday Ever

Easter Sunday 2013

Jill and I Logo

The Marriage Covenant

Gen 2:18-24; 18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)

After creation, the Triune God made a human man after their own image (that image is explained by Jesus in John 4). In order to prove to that man that there was no animal in all of creation suitable for fellowship, and procreation, God made “woman”, the female form of the human man. Thus, the Marriage Covenant was established; One man, one woman, one flesh.

“One flesh” means more than the marriage-bed sexual relationship between the united couple. Its meaning is a joining of two entities formed into one new being. That is why in Genesis 5:1 God called THEM “man”. One united couple commanded to populate the earth. The purpose for this deliberate designed union is explained in Malachi 2:15;

“Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” (NIV)

Repeatedly we have witnesses of scripture of God’s condemnation of same sex sexual acts, both in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament. God is absolutely consistent. Likewise is His judgment on a man and woman having sexual relations outside of marriage is sin. God’s deliberate design was, and remains; one man with one woman in covenant union to raise Godly children for the glory of the Kingdom of God.

When I was in high school there was a saying going around from part of my generation who ultimately became the hippies (who are in legislatures today). That saying was, “don’t shove your morals down my throat”. Those same people are doing just that to the American people with their war on the marriage covenant. The homosexual activist are so desperate to sooth their conscious with their activism to force the “straight” citizens of America to accept their chosen lifestyle as normal, and force the State to give them the same protection of heterosexual marriage. They want to force you and I to change our scriptural position that homosexuality is wrong. They have gone so far as to invade our public schools with materials designed to teach children that their chosen lifestyle is normal and should be explored. Nothing forced upon a people can be a good thing for that society.

No, it is not right to persecute homosexuals for their chosen lifestyle. All “bullying” efforts are wrong as well as any condemnation. I have had the privilege of knowing and working with several different people who practiced the homosexual lifestyle. One of them was one of my closest friends, and I miss him very much. He was a great mentor and I learned volumes from his experience and wisdom. I knew about his lifestyle choices and he knew mine. We never made it an issue, and I never condemned him or made him feel uncomfortable. He passed away several years ago. With all the others I have known and worked with, the issue was never discussed, nor did it affect our relationship. Respect demands acceptance of anyone’s chosen lifestyle that has no negative affect on humanity.

All this uproar over same sex marriage has produced division and discord in our society. Nothing good can really come out of all this, nor will the issue be settled on both sides. Any compromise will not be accepted, nor will it render any respect for anyone. The strife established can only bring about a bad result. Let us discuss several issues that pertain to this argument;

  1. The Federal government has no business even discussing this subject of same sex marriage. The First Amendment to the Constitution restricts them from forcing this definition upon the Church. Each religious institution has the First Amendment right to determine what is acceptable marriage unions. The States have establish laws that recognize, as lawful, marriage unions, including those from other States, or Countries. The Federal Government is not included in any of those decisions.
  2. What good is it for voters to vote on propositions/referendums if groups that don’t like the outcome of the vote and use their co-conspirators (the Federal Courts) to overturn the will of the people, nullifying those votes? Has it not it been the cry of the Left concerning “voter nullification”? Yet they demonstrate their Socialist ideology by using the courts to get their way and ignore the true will of the people.
    1. I have heard many people say, “Why should I vote when the other side will just get their way through the courts”?
    2. b.    Why do we have a Representative Republic if in fact our votes do not count?
    3. c.    Are we already living in a Marxist/Socialist society with the voting is just a sham to make us think our voice still means anything?
    4. Multiple politicians have rushed to the microphones of their media partners proclaiming their support of same sex marriage. Using the insidiousness of emotional blackmail, they pull at the heartstrings of middle-of-the-road ignorant voters hoping to get them to keep them in power. These tactics tell you everything about their true intentions.
    5. The Church (Catholic and Evangelical) is being demeaned and persecuted for taking God at His Word and trying to live out that Word;
      1. Because I do not agree with someone else’s perspective does not make me a hater, nor have I ceased to love people. A Biblical foundation is the ability to love people while hating what they do. For example;

i.    Can you love the alcoholic and hate their alcoholism? Yes.

ii.    Can you love the addict and hate their addiction? Yes.

iii.    Can you love the grumpy while hating their grumpy attitude? Yes.

iv.    Can you love a homosexual while hating their choice of the homosexual lifestyle? YES!

  1. Loving people never means having to agree with all they stand for and believe. Neither does your disagreement make you a homophobe, hater, racist or any other kind of hateful label hung on such people who disagree. A healthy society allows for differing points of view, and does not support anyone forcing others to believe their way.
  2. Christian witnessing has never been by force, as did Mohammad. Any groups of people claiming to be Christian and apply undue force on the populace to believe their way are misrepresentatives of God, and unacceptable by any healthy society.

I have been a student of the Word of God for over 40 years. I do not now, nor have I ever claimed to be some kind of expert. I am still learning. I do know what God’s Word says, and according to 2nd Peter 1, the Word of God is not subject to any private interpretation. In fact, I have learned that the Word of God explains itself and does not need any human to explain. Here are some facts from scripture;

  • God has condemned the practice of homosexuality PERIOD.
    • Lev 18:22; “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV )
    • Lev 20:13; “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)
    • Rom 1:18-32; 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.


24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.


26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (NIV)

  • We have two historical accounts of societies that allowed homosexuality to become the norm. The shame was gone, no laws to restrict their practice and society in general let them practice their lifestyle choice openly. Both societies ended up the same; destroyed.

The first is found in Genesis Chapter 19 and the second is detailed in Judges Chapters 19 & 20. In both cities, Sodom and Gibeah, the men of the city attacked the door of the houses because they wanted to have sex with the male visitors that arrived and was going to spend the night under the private roof of the host. In Sodom, the Angels had to pull Lot back in the house and blind the men so they could escape. In Gibeah, the Levite visitor gave them his concubine who gang raped her all night, causing her death. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire. In Gibaeh God caused all of Israel to attack Gibeah because they refused to give up the homosexuals that murdered the woman by gang rape.

This has been the fate of any society that has allowed objectionable conduct to go unchecked, where God has been removed from their lives and the liberal thinking has created an environment that caused the people to say that good (righteousness) was evil, and that evil was good.

The entire subject of marriage does not belong with the Federal Government, and really, it does not belong under any State Government. History tells us about the uproar and objections produced when States decided to get into the marriage business by requiring marriage licenses. The debate was whether or not the State had any business in regulating the sacred bonds of marriage by raising revenue through marriage license. Debating what constitutes marriage and who should be allowed to engage is a subject our founding Fathers never imagined would ever occur. This national debate, and taking up the Supreme Courts time has been the results of the homosexual lobby forcing their chosen lifestyle down the throats of every American. It is not about equality. It is about their determination to force our society to accept their lifestyle as normal and not objectionable. It is a fight for the freedom of Christians, and others, to believe what we know to be acceptable behavior, and to reject what we believe to be abhorrent behavior. Notice that they have not made any attempts to get any of the Islam nations to make the same, forced, acceptance?

Those that scream the most about separation of Church and State are the ones that are determined to remove our free speech, and create laws that they define as hate speech. Such gagging of Christian Americans voices is in itself an abomination, and constitutionally wrong.

California and other States have caved in to provide same sex union contracts that offer most of the same privileges as married couples. That is not good enough for the homosexual lobby. They want to force us (socialism tactics) to accept what we know to be wrong, against God’s perfect will, against His creation and by all historical records, abhorrent to all societies. Furthermore, they hang demeaning labels on anyone who disagree with them and their allies (the entire political Left).

Stop the madness. Leave the sacred institution of marriage alone. You choose to be a homosexual, fine, but stop shoving it down my throat and stop teaching our children that your chooses are normal. I have never condoned prejudice, nor will I. I work hard at loving people and showing respect. In a quality society, such respect should be the norm, and any disagreement accepted.

As a nation we are in desperate need of revival;

  • Spiritual,
  • Constitutional,
  • Common respect for everyone, especially those that disagree with us,
  • and a revival of setting aside our differences so we can focus as a nation on ridding ourselves of our national debt,
  • reducing and eliminating entitlements,
  • and getting Americans back to work.

“Heavenly Father, in the mighty Name of Jesus our Lord and Savior, by the power of Your Holy Spirit, we join in prayer seeking Your Face, admitting we are sinners in need of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. We repent of our sins, and make the deliberate choice to turn from our wicked ways. We choose to serve You by Your Word and live lives acceptable to You. Please heal our land. Please restore the nation you created for Yourself for the spreading of the Gospel around the world. Thank You for hearing our prayer and healing our land. In Jesus Name, Amen.”

Yes. The Founding Fathers Had Much to Say About Homosexuality, and Thus, Same Sex Marriage


What The Founding Fathers Believed About Homosexuality



I have made no bones about the fact that the ultimate authority on the issue of homosexuality is the Bible and it is crystal clear in condemning it. If others want to cite polls and commentaries and “experts” to attempt to bolster their claim in favor of homosexuality they are welcome to do so. However, what I find a bit disingenuous are those that will talk about rights within the context of the Constitution, which was written by men, not God as though the men who wrote it and backed it would have sided with practicing homosexuals today on the issue of marriage. I can tell you that the issue of marriage would have never been addressed as it is today, simply because the view of homosexuality was addressed first, thus making the point of same-sex “marriage” a ridiculous notion.

First, note that our founding fathers would have been outraged that homosexuals would be out in the open. They knew that such perversion would both undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Under the British common law, the term sodomy was used to identify same-sex relations and was a capital crime. Understand that the founders referenced Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England extensively. He was a British attorney, jurist, law professor, author, and political philosopher.

Blackstone’s commentaries were the premiere legal source used by the Founding Fathers in America. So this should carry some weight with those who claim they know what the Founding Fathers knew and wanted concerning the issue of homosexuality, but I’m guessing they will dismiss it. In Blackstone’s Book the Fourth.: of Public Wrongs in his book titled Of Offences against the Persons of Individuals, Chapter Fifteen, he writes the following on pages 215-216 (emphasis added):

IV. WHAT has been here observed…, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast…. But it is an offence of so dark a nature…that the accusation should be clearly made out….

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta
says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur

Most Americans are completely unaware that the “Father of our country,” George Washington, who would also be considered this country’s first “Commander-in-Chief” approved the dismissal from the service at Valley Forge in 1778 of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin. Why did he do this? According to the orders, which are held at the Library of Congress, Enslin was “attempting to commit sodomy” with another soldier. Under the title of “Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778” there is the following entry:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

What’s even more interesting is that Enslin’s dismissal came less than two weeks after another soldier, Ensign Anthony Maxwell, was acquitted of the charge of “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin” on Feb. 27, 1778. Penny Star cites the transcription of the court martial dated March 3, 1778: “At a Brigade Court Martial whereof Colo. Burr was President (Feby. 27th. 1778,) Ensign Maxwell of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin. The Court after maturely deliberating upon the Evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the Character of Lieutt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the Charge.”

Note that our first President viewed “sodomy” or homosexual relations with “Abhorrence and Detestation.” He was not a spineless, wishy washy, panty waisted man like the current occupant of the White House, who claims his views have “evolved.” He was a man that recognized perverse behavior for what it was, perversion. He was not alone either. In all thirteen colonies homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense and eventually that grew to encompass each and every one of the fifty states. By the way, that fell under “equal treatment under the law.”

The law was based upon Leviticus 20:13:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.”

This verse was “adopted into legislation and enforced by the colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.” Oh the irony that 2012′s GOP Mormon nominee for President Mitt Romney was the one to “legalize” homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts. Here are just a few of the states and the punishments they executed for sodomy.

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT

Ah, but some will say, “Thomas Jefferson would have never stood for this. He wanted liberty and equal rights for homosexuals to get married.” Not according to the record he didn’t. In Notes on the State of Virginia by Matthew Carey (1794) Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. I’m guessing there weren’t too many sodomites wanting that to take place. You might say that is Jefferson’s home state, but not Jefferson’s thoughts on the issue. Not so fast. Jefferson actually authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson’s “For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments)). The below capture of Jefferson’s legislation is courtesy of The Library of Congress and

jefferson on sodomy

I’ll conclude by stating that the founders understood the role that morality plays in a culture. Washington in his famous “Farewell Address,” which used to be memorized by high school students in America said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert … ?”

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Now understand this. I don’t believe that all the founders were Christian. Obviously there were Unitarians, at least one Jew, Christians, atheists and deists, and many that belonged to the Masonic Lodge. While morality apart from Jesus Christ results in moralism, there is no doubt that the morals that were taught in the Bible were taken to heart in regards to sodomy. In other words, if we take Washington’s words seriously, then he not only has referenced those of the homosexual community as “abhorrent and detestable,” but he has also said they cannot rightly call themselves patriots. Today, these criminals are out in the open spewing their filth and embraced by the criminals in Washington, instead of facing just punishment.

Coulter: The Left’s Continuing War on Women

Coulter: The Left's Continuing War on Women

By: Ann Coulter
3/27/2013 09:00 PM



The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.

The main purpose of the article was to tweak America’s oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person’s firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.

It’s a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.

Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: “It’s counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life.”

But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.

As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren’t particularly difficult to get. It doesn’t occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether or not his accusations are true.

Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this — and other Times’ proposals on guns — only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.

The vast majority of rapists, for example, don’t even bother using a gun because — as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes — they typically have a “substantial power advantage over the victim,” making the use of a weapon redundant.

As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: “In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths.”

No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.

Deborah Wigg moved out, got a protective order and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.

He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.

As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn’t arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.

The protective order didn’t help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn’t help; her neighbors and parents couldn’t help. Only if she’d had a gun and knew how to use it — after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject — might she have been able to save her own life.

Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That’s true even when the assailant is armed.

Liberals’ advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times’ advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA’s advice is: Blow the dirtbag’s head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.

Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.

But the Times doesn’t want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won’t stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.

Great Evidence of the Value of Free Market Economics

The Greater Depression

You can’t say we haven’t been warned. Despite the high debt price tag resulting from the government intervention and arbitrary price controls designed to “spur the economy” during the American Great Depression, modern politicians on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to repeat the same mistakes. Interestingly, just as Herbert Hoover is blamed by leftist historians (but I repeat myself) for leading us into the Depression with his so-called free-market policies, so is George W. Bush blamed for his “capitalistic” tendencies. This is nonsense of course, both Hoover and Bush implemented interventionist economic policies that were exactly the antithesis of free-market capitalism. And both were succeeded by men who took their economic strategies (i.e. political compromises) and opened them up to full-throttle. What Hoover and Bush began, FDR and Obama have respectively finished.

In his book, America’s Great Depression, Murray Rothbard sets the record on Hoover in proper perspective:

Hoover’s role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his predecessor. To scoff at Hoover’s tragic failure to cure the depression as a typical example of laissez-faire [meaning “allow to act,” or free-enterprise] is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free market.

In similar fashion, George W. Bush receives much of the media scorn for the current recession (read: government subsidized depression) due to his “lack” of enacting interventionist tactics—what one investor refers to as the “unregulated shadow banking system”—which is pure lunacy. Bush’s government spending makes Bill Clinton look like a miser, but it took Obama little more than a year to outspend Bush. As far as the economy is concerned, Clinton was far more Republican than either Bush or Hoover. In other words, both Hoover and Bush should receive a fair share of the blame for their contributions to a weak economy, but it shouldn’t be because of their loyalty to free-market principles—just the opposite in fact.

A 67-year-old warning from an authoritative source should be heard and heeded all across America. After World War II, Hermann Goering, one of Adolf Hitler’s right-hand men, told an American war correspondent:

Your America is doing many things in the economic field which we found out caused us so much trouble. You are trying to control peoples’ wages and prices—peoples’ work. If you do that you must control peoples’ lives. And no country can do that part way. I tried and it failed. Nor can any country do it all the way either. I tried that too and it failed. You are no better planners than we. I should think your economists would read what happened here.

Goering came to understand—too late—that any form of economic intervention by the government is ultimately destined for failure, regardless if it is “part way” or “all the way.” Goering came to realize that controlling people’s work is the same as controlling their lives, and this type of control is illusory and temporary. In the 67 years that have taken place between Goering’s warning and today, the American government is still holding onto this illusion, convinced that it can somehow beat the odds of Goering’s prediction. It can’t and it won’t. Hermann Goering was not warning of what might happen, but of what was already happening in 1946. He could see it because he had lived it and actually helped to implement it. And both Presidents Hoover and Bush would (now) agree.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: