Sunday, March 31, 2013
That’s the big question today confronting our citizens and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For thousands of years, most all traditions around the world have recognized marriage as between a man and a woman. Only in the last ten years or so, has there been a major effort to change our marriage laws to include same sex marriage, mainly endorsed, quite naturally, by the homosexual community. It seems that gays are no longer seeking tolerance in America, they are seeking approval of their lifestyle. They are using gay marriage as a means of achieving that approval. In the process, they have demonized the opposition by using terms like bigot and homophobe, and it seems to be working.
Our marriage laws spring from a system of values and beliefs i.e., every law that is passed is an instance of legislating morality. A nations laws help shape the beliefs, character, and actions of its citizens. It’s impossible to separate morality from law. To argue that homosexual behavior should be viewed and treated the same as heterosexual behavior suggests that a person has adopted a moral position. And to call me, and others, a bigot for not agreeing with their moral position on homosexual behavior, is a moral judgment.
By trying to change the laws regarding marriage, you are insisting on imposing your morality on the rest of us. The question is, does your morality strengthen the social fabric and further the cause of personal freedom and individual liberty or would it destroy society and undermine liberty.
Firstly, the government doesn’t force anyone to get married. Secondly, no one has a “right” to get married because marriage is not a human right, it is a privilege, even for homosexuals. Government rightly discriminates regarding the privilege of marriage, which means it’s not unreasonable for society to place restrictions on marriage to serve its best interests i.e., the encouragement of children and families. The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuse discriminations among different kinds of behavior, what other purpose does law have? While people are treated the same, all their behaviors are not.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined - and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
Marriage is not a right, but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that among other things have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation, and to maintain stable family relationships for the good of society.
The law is a great teacher, and by legalizing same sex marriage it will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children. That will mean more children born out of wedlock, that will be a disaster for everyone. Also, society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes - illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
Is that what we want for the future of our children, grandchildren and our country?
(Information for this article was gleaned from the writings of I.M. Kane, Frank Turek and Thomas Sowell)
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Thursday, March 28, 2013
An open letter to Barack Hussein Obama,
President and Commander-in-Chief:
March 26, 2013
You are renowned all across the Globe as a speech-maker, par excellence. It is what you do. Frankly sir, it is my assessment that this is practically, all you do.
So, it should be a piece of cake for you to explain to us in plain, everyday English, exactly what is going on at the Department of Homeland Security.
Janet Napolitano either doesn’t care to divulge the reason or she doesn’t know what all the activity regarding the stockpiling of billions of rounds of ammunition and nearly 3,000 armored vehicles being shipped to undisclosed locations around the country, is all about. It strains credibility to think that she doesn’t know what’s going on. Wouldn’t you agree? I’m guessing that there is fairly frequent interaction and plenty of communication between you two – both of you being so concerned about national security and relatively minor issues like that.
And so, Sir – if you can fit it into your busy, busy schedule – might I, as an ordinary, senior citizen who did a brief hitch in the U.S.Navy at the end of World War II, impose upon your valuable time – to provide us, the remaining veterans of that war and the other wars between then and now, with some idea of just what in the hell is going on in your Department of Homeland Security? What little we see and hear is scary. What we don’t see and don’t hear – is far scarier.
Can you help us to peer through the transparency? Can we be let in on the secret? May we know how our tax dollars are being spent? And most importantly, Sir – precisely what it is that you have in mind to do for us – or do to us?
Thanks for sharing.
Boynton Beach, FL 33437
Sunday, March 24, 2013
The term “Affirmative Action” was first used by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, in an executive order that instructed federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure against discrimination. The policy was implemented in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed and signed by Pres. Lyndon Johnson. The Act provided that government contractors and educational institutions receiving federal funds must develop programs prohibiting discrimination in the workplace or in college admissions. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunities Commission) was set up in 1965 to enforce these provisions of the law. Other changes to the program have occurred over the ensuing years, many restricting its scope..
The theory behind affirmative action was meant to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. You could say, that the government wanted to give a “leg up” to some who might’ve been discriminated against previously. This brought about the establishment of “racial or sexual quotas” in the name of affirmative action. The implementation of these “quotas” brought about charges of so-called “reverse discrimination” by others, mainly whites, males, and Jews, who felt that they were unfairly deprived of legitimate jobs, job advancement, and in college school admissions. These laws did accomplish the goals that it set out to do, namely, it did increase jobs and college admissions of minorities.
Like most all government programs, once they are instituted it is almost impossible to undo them even when the evidence seems to prove that the reasons behind the programs, in the first place, no longer are valid or needed.
A white backlash has come about over the last 30 years or so, and a number of court decisions have narrowed the scope of programs in college admissions and in the workplace. The black community, by a good percentage, still believes that affirmative action is still needed, whereas most whites and males think that the time has come to end this program which many call “reverse discrimination”.
Many people who are against the policy point to the changes that have taken place in the past 50 years. We have elected a black president (twice), we’ve had a couple of black Secretary’s of State and a couple of women in that position, we’ve had a black and an Hispanic Attorney General, and many corporations have had or have many blacks and women in positions of authority. Many of our elected representatives on the federal and state levels are blacks and women and other minorities. Widespread discrimination in government or private businesses are not a major problem today. Yes, you can always point to certain situations where discrimination raises its ugly head, but those are the exceptions and not the rule anymore, so why perpetuate a program that causes strife among the races or the sexes? Blatant discrimination can and should be confronted and prosecuted by the laws we already have on the books.
Well then, with all these success stories, as it pertains to minorities, why should programs of affirmative action and “quotas” still be in effect here in the 21st century? Many people feel that “quotas” that have not been judicially created to remedy specific, proven acts of discrimination, only result in more discrimination and violate the concept of equality of opportunity for others who are not in that specific category.
I therefore conclude, that there is not a need to continue this very divisive program called “affirmative action”.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Chicago born Michelle LaVaughn Robinson never loved her country until
the political gangsters of that city won the Oval Office for her husband.
He turned out to be a product of that machine, picking him for his charismatic
charm. A trait and asset needed for anybody to be an accomplished con artist.
A con artist is someone who screws the public and they thank him for it.
Part of a con job is to use props to create an image of who they really aren't.
The Obamas use their daughters a lot for this. John Gotti was a fine family
man, as was Al Capone and a list of notorious dictators. The vulnerable and
ignorant fall for the false image and are enamored by his generosity toward
them, at the expense on others. As commander in chief, the military by order,
are used as a back drop, as well as teachers, policemen, firemen and others
under Union command, for the effect that they agree with and are all behind him.
The administration's creation of sequestration was a farce to put fear into all
of us. More than 85 billion of real cuts could be made by placing a moratorium
on all conferences, seminars and pork allocated to...... you scratch my back,
I'll scratch your projects, for re-election. Cancel the President's 100 city
propaganda tour and leave Air Force One in the garage once in a awhile.
Furlough the Czars.Weed out abusers of the welfare system and take back
their cell phones. My budget doesn't allow me to own one, and I'm told, it's
because I'm not on welfare. Do all the above and this will show that most of
these mentioned can be permanentlyeliminated without hardship to anyone.
Instead of working in a bipartisan way to fix our ailing economy, Obama is
focused on the 2014 congressional elections. His plan is to politicize and
pulverize everything those nasty uncooperative Republicans offer to save
the nation, so as to make them look bad and take back the House of
Using every means in the manual, He resorted to another photo-op gimmick,
by his personal outreach to eleven GOP senators on March 6th, inviting them
to their,"Last Supper" of deception...... they being the victims.
This will give him control of both houses in the legislature so he can make
sure to totally liberalize the Supreme Court when retirees are replaced in the
judicial branch.This will give him a free hand to control all aspects of the
government and our lives. Shades of the late Hugo Chavez, that will lead
us into a socialist state.
The debt doesn't bother him, or the pain he inflicts on most Americans,
because to him, renovating anything in most cases, requires you tear down
the original structure to build over it. His blueprint for America is filled
with erroneous measurements and faulty calculations that can never pass
inspection. If we allow it, it will give him license to destroy the document
our Founding Fathers created to prevent his intentions. And all the blood
shed in the past to build our nation of free will and hope will have been in
vain and go down in ashes.
If you love your country, you do not want to radically change it. You will
want to share its example for the rest of the world to follow.
Conservative commentary by George Giftos
Sunday, March 17, 2013
During his State Of the Union speech, President Obama stated that he would work to raise the Federal Minimum Wage from $7.25 to $9.00 per hour. Sounds fair, doesn’t it? After all, it makes it possible for some workers to take home more money from their job. We all want more money to spend, don’t we? But, does it make economic common sense?
Many economists have said that raising the minimum wage is really a job killer not a panacea to the low wage worker. Raising the minimum wage for a full-time worker would put an additional $70 in his pocket for the week, based on a 40 hour week (less when you deduct taxes). It would amount to a total raise of $3500 for the year (for 50 weeks), still way below the poverty line for a family of four. So it is not the great equalizer that Obama alluded to when he mentioned that increase at the State of the Union speech to rapt applause from the Democrat politicians in attendance.
The only reason to propose this increase is for political purposes not for economic purposes. It is a feel-good liberal proposal showing how “compassionate” they are for the poor.
Now, let’s get down to reality. Every time the minimum wage has been raised in the past, it caused less employment for teenagers and others looking for part-time work, and for other the low-skilled workers. It is particularly more damaging to black and Latino workers. Businesses that normally hire those type of workers, in order to cut costs, will not hire more workers or will cut back on the hours of existing employees, or might even lay off workers.
If the minimum wage is raised to $9.00, it will create an upward surge of wage rates at or above the $9.00 rate, thereby making an employer have to absorb those extra costs including FICA taxes and Medicare taxes, or raise his prices which might, in some cases, hasten the demise of his business. Then everyone loses, including the minimum wage worker.
Remember, a worker doesn’t get paid for the time he works, he gets paid for the value he brings to the time he works. In other words, is a workers production worth it to the company or organization to pay you the amount they pay you? If not, they won’t hire you or keep you on the job.
Most workers who start out at the minimum wage, spend only a short time at that wage, with some exceptions, and if their job performance is deemed beneficial to the company who has hired him/her, that worker will be promoted to a better paying position. The free market place should determine what the wage should be, not the government.
If the minimum wage is too high, many low-skilled workers will not be able to be hired, and therefore, he will be “punished” by the actions of feckless politicians. Therefore, I contend that raising the minimum wage equals maximum stupidity. It makes no economic commonsense, it only strokes the egos of politicians looking to get re-elected and to be looked upon as being compassionate to the poor.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Object, Resist, Stymie & Block
Sounds like a firm of shady lawyers, doesn’t it? Or, is it – crooked accountants?
With my half-hearted apologies to all attorneys & accountants – a little sarcasm here, at
your expense. Call it, Pro Bono. There, does that help?
‘Object, resist, stymie and block’ is I believe, precisely what is needed to stop
Obama’s lunacy – meaning, his relentless drive to spend our country into oblivion. He
has long since exploded his own pet theory about spending our way out of an economy
that grows worse by the hour. It hasn’t worked. It cannot work. It is the epitome of a
lunatic theory that has never worked. It is pie in the sky. It is worse than pie in the sky
– it is idiotic. And, it is the cornerstone of ‘obama’s’ economic master plan. So, if that’s
his big shot at saving this nation’s economy – where does that leave us? It leaves us
$16 TRILLION dollars in debt – and counting. What a genius. Now, all you intelligent
voters who returned this monster to office for four more years – how’s that workin’ out?
More and more, we hear from ‘middle-class Americans’ about the intolerable increases
at the gas pump, the supermarket, their health care, insurance and everything they buy.
And what are we getting from the Clown-in-Charge who occasionally occupies the Oval
Office in the White House? We are getting ‘Executive Orders’ to provide pay raises
for the millions of Government workers, excepting the military of course. And, Mr.Butt-
Head-in-Chief has provided another $2.2 BILLION worth of free-cell phones and free
minutes to the hard-working unemployed so they can ostensibly, call around for a job.
Who believes that even a dozen of these phones will ever contribute to employing those
who are currently the hard-working unemployed? More idiocy. Yet, another off-the-wall
solution to a chronic problem. A problem that has been exacerbated by the hubris and
inexperience of ‘barack HUSSEIN obama’, the economic Wizard from Mars.
So, you even harder-working ‘middle-class’ Americans – what can you do about your
effort to survive the ever-increasing cost of living? Pick up the phone and call your
local Congressman or Congresswoman and scream into the phone – “OBJECT,
RESIST, STYMIE AND BLOCK” every single, damned Obama spending bill that
comes up for a vote! And, don’t think for a minute, that I’ll forget how you voted when
the time comes to vote for you, again. Am I getting through to ya, Congress-person?
Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Ever since Barack Hussein Obama has come onto the political scene, he has been railing against the big, bad “evil” corporations, calling them vultures, among other epithets.
But, since he has become president, it seems his rhetoric doesn’t match his actions. In fact, he has become quite chummy with the 2nd largest company in the world - that company being General Electric (a/k/a G.E.). One of his most trusted advisors and a personal friend is Jeffrey Immelt, C.E.O. of General Electric. Their relationship has caused much speculation and concern as regards to G.E.’s access to the Obama Administration and the benefits it has received as a result. Let’s examine what might cause the concern of others and whether or not that concern is truly warranted.
G.E. is a highly diversified company with its hand in many areas of business. A partial listing of the tentacles of businesses that G.E. is involved in are as follows - G.E. has interests in wind turbines; medical equipment, nuclear, water and power storage; charging stations for EV’s (electric vehicles) and a whole host of subsidized green technologies. Don’t those business interests have something in common that jibes with the agenda of the Obama Administration? It might be easy to make that connection or is it just a coincidence?
G.E. CEO, Jeffrey Immelt was a big supporter of Obama during the 2008 presidential election campaign. After Obama was elected, Immelt was appointed to a seat on the Economic Advisory Board, along with another G.E. stockholder, Warren Buffett, another Obama supporter.
Let’s see how that “chummy” relationship between Obama and Immelt might’ve impacted the business fortunes of G.E. In 2014, you won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. G.E. is going to be a very big supplier of the higher priced, higher margin fluorescent light bulbs. A coincidence?
Obamacare has a provision in it that everyone will need to join a Health Information Exchange which will integrate hospital information systems. G.E. will supply the equipment. A coincidence?
The Obama Administration has pushed through trade deals with other countries - including a relaxed control on India’s purchase of “dual use” technologies that could be used for civilian and military purposes which will clearly benefit G.E., and which G.E. expects will grow its sales to India of about 30% annually. A coincidence?
G.E. has also announced it will buy 25,000 electric vehicles for its fleet through 2016 from General Motors. This will be the largest ever purchase of cars. The car to be purchased - G.M.’s Chevy Volt (a real sales dud with the general public). G.M. is a company that Obama helped bail out a couple of years ago and which the U.S. still has a financial interest, and for which it is still owed over $20 billion from the bailout. A coincidence?
G.E.’s business has increased by 172% since Obama took office. A coincidence?
By the way, guess who makes those airport screeners? One guess. You got it, G.E. A coincidence?
In addition, G.E. got $24.9 million in grants from the $787 billion “Stimulus” and as a result G.E. laid off 18,000 workers after receiving the grants. In 2010, G.E. took in $159 billion in revenue and paid zero income taxes. Could that also be a coincidence?
During the years from 2008 to 2013, G.E. owned 49% of broadcast network NBC (Comcast will buy out G.E. of the 49% , sometime this year). NBC has been considered to be the most partisan network for Obama and the Democrats. That couldn’t be a coincidence, could it?
So from what you’ve read, do you think there is a sweetheart arrangement between Obama and G.E. or was it just a coincidence?
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Bill Whittle does a terrific job in this segment of his Virtual State of the Union. The Virtual President speaks about why politicians want to talk about gun control rather than crime control. Bill Whittle delivers the factual evidence and historical truths that make the case for the Second Amendment self-evident.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
There is no easy answer to that question. We can only surmise with conjecture what the answer might be - depending on whether you are gay or straight or open minded.
As human beings, we can “love” anyone we want to. As a heterosexual, I can see where people can love someone of the same sex, mainly as it concerns fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, other family members and close friends. It is normal to show affection in those cases, but the difference between that “love” and homosexuality is the part about sex. That is the part that homosexuals are trying to convince others that gay sex is normal, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.
Is it normal for a man to have sex with another man (anal and/or oral), and the same with females with other females? Is it a normal alternative lifestyle?
If you believe in an “almighty” creator, did he (or she) create a man and a woman differently to cause a certain happening? The human race can only survive by a man and a woman procreating to have offspring. The people in a homosexual relationship cannot procreate (unless through surrogates or artificial insemination), but they can still love one another. To get technical, the anal orifice in a man was made for “elimination”, not “injestion“. To argue otherwise, would argue that that procedure, in sexual terms, was normal. In the case of female homosexuals, they don’t have that problem, and the dangers that come from engaging in that lifestyle is generally not a concern for them. The male homosexual, due to his generally more promiscuous behavior and the type of the sex involved, is more prone to getting HIV, STD’s, hepatitis, and lower bowel problems etc., and therefore their life expectancy is generally considered to be about 10 years lower than that of a heterosexual male.
So taking all that into consideration, and the way our bodies have been formed and created, it would be quite a stretch to reasonably conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is normal and should be made comparable to the heterosexual lifestyle.
There has been a concerted push on the part of the gay community, to paint their lifestyle as just another alternative lifestyle, and that they should be given all the benefits that straight people have, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.
Most all religions, from time immemorial, do not recognize the gay lifestyle as commanding equal status, but being financially well-off and well organized, the gay community has gotten some traction in the arenas of public opinion. A lot of people who do not agree with the gay community, are cowed and threatened by the militant gays. Cries of “homophobia” or “bigot” ring out if you question their ideas or come out against what they are trying to change, and many people seem to go along to get along instead of standing up for what they truly believe. Unfortunately, the gays seem to be winning in the P.R. war. The gays who are always preaching tolerance, become very intolerant when you disagree with them. In this case, tolerance has a tendency to breed intolerance.
Nobody knows what will eventually occur in the future, but it will be contentious to say the least, on both sides.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann