Should we Change Our Laws and Accept Same Sex Marriage?

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

MORT’s meanderings

An open letter to Barack Hussein Obama,

President and Commander-in-Chief:

March 26, 2013   

Mr. President.

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.

MORT KUFF

Boynton Beach, FL 33437

© 3-26-2013

Is There Still a Need for Affirmative Action?

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

CON ARTIST in CHIEF

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
Representatives.

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

Minimum Wage Equals Maximum Stupidity!

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