Obama Declares June National LGBT Pride Month
July 2, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
On June 1, 2009, the Obama Adminstration released a statement declaring the month of June to be henceforth a celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender pride. One might wonder why our Federal Government is endorsing a lifestyle that cannot contribute positively to society as a whole, rather than celebrating lasting marriage between a man and a woman, which is ultimately the only relationship with a profoundly good effect on children.
Frank Turek’s article, “Gay Marriage:Â Even Liberals Know It’s Bad,” addresses the issue of homosexual marriage specifically:
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt?  Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
How so?
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage 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.
So what?
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. 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…
Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children?   And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society.  Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
Mr. Turek shows examples of countries that have legalized gay marriage in his article that have seen a breakdown in marriages altogether, in addition to a dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock and a disintegration of families. There is no possible benefit to society in endorsing something that can lead to the breakdown of families and depriving children of either a mother or a father and a stable home. Many studies show the variety of negative effects that children from broken homes suffer, and anything that could lead to its increase should not be endorsed in any way by the government.
White House: Don’t Pray Publicly, But Celebrate The GLBT Revolution
July 1, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
Earlier this year, President Obama failed to hold any event at the White House celebrating the National Day of Prayer, opting instead to simply issue a proclamation of the day. However, he took the initiative to declare the month of June “National GLBT Pride Month,” and on June 29th held an event at the White House to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the GLBT protests at Stonewall. His opening words to the appreciative crowd at this event were “Welcome to your White House”!
At every turn, the Obama administration is bending over backwards to show all the liberal activists his support, while casting aside the things that are important to conservatives, even to the point of subtly belittling them in his speech at the Stonewall Celebration event:
There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we’ve made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.
And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that’s important, and I’m glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. [Applause] For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts…
It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need — that we all share the capacity to love…
Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet.
That’s why I’ve spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences — in front of African-American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that’s what I’ll continue to do so. That’s how we’ll shift attitudes…
The truth is, when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you — or, for that matter, I — [laughter] — would be standing here today. [Applause] So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress — step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you.
President Obama seems bent on alienating the conservatives in the United States by his decisions and speeches. Celebrating the GLBT revolution rather than calling our nation to unite in prayer demonstrates an erosion of moral values that has reached historic levels of penetration into our society.
Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill and Light Bulbs
June 30, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under Business, Economy, General, Politics
The passage of the new climate bill is a terrible thing as it is the largest tax placed on Americans. While the concept might seem great, the cost of cap and trade is passed on to the consumer. The purpose of the bill was to help us get away from foreign oil. It will actually do the opposite.
When oil producers have to pay a tax, it increases their costs. Those costs get passed on to us. Once the costs get too high, the only thing the domestic producers will be able to do is shut down refineries and reduce production.  This bill is going to raise the cost of oil so much that we’re going to start importing oil again.
Besides this effect, it doesn’t help that 300 pages were added to the bill at the very last minute. How many of the democratic congress men actually read the bill? To top it off, Obama’s “Energy Czar” hasn’t even read the bill. Jimmie, from the Sundries Shack has a nice opinion on that.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.
“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.
And by “better” the administration means “whatever crappy expensive new lighting General Electric happens to be making that might possibly eke out an infinitesimal energy savings, damn the cost to you or your employer”.
Now Obama wants to regulate your lightbulb. I knew that we would have big government with Obama, but this is more than I would have thought. If Obama would let capitalism run its course, we would have more efficient bulbs. It is not government that is the creator of new ideas, it is the entrepreneur. As Obama and his government get more mixed in with business, they will continue to stifle the economy.
Obama pointed out the following in the article.
He pointed to the state of California as an example of what stricter energy efficiency standards could achieve. In the late 1970′s, California enacted tougher energy policies, which the president said, helped create millions of jobs. Today, he said, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average.
Ya, California is an example of all that is good. <Sarcasm> Does that also include their $24 Billion in deficits this year? Government should be small. It should mind its own business and let the people take care of themselves.
Obama and the Press
June 26, 2009 by I.P.Freeley
Filed under General, Politics
I have recently seen Obama on a few press interviews where he becomes frustrated with their questions and just simply says, “I’m the President.” As if that is supposed to end the questioning and solve everything. You know, I think that is a bit arrogant. The President of the United States is not a person, it’s a role. It is not the office that makes the man, it is the man that makes the office and we, as Citizens of the United States, have given you the grace of being in that role. You are responsible to us. Stop trying to ignore our questions and stop trying to avoid answers by claiming a defacto position of Deity. Being the President of the United Stated doesn’t give you power to do what you want, it gives you power to serve the people who elected you (yes Congress, you should listen too). Remember, in the end you answer to those who elected you. Please don’t forget that; for I can guarantee you that as Americans we won’t.  No matter how much you try to change America and make change, you will not be able to change the fact that for the past 200 plus years we have a cultural heritage of preserving and fighting for the freedoms of individuals in our nation. Though we may not be perfect at it, we keep trying. It is by answering tough questions that we do this and it is by holding our elected officials accountable for their servitude to us that this nation rolls forward. It is not by ending the conversation with, “I’m the President”, because the statement, “I elected you” will always trump the person in office.
Obama challenged on Healthcare
June 25, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General, Health Care, Politics
During Obama’s 75 minutes of primetime coverage, he was questioned by some doctors regarding a scenario on what he would do if his family became sick. Would Obama make a pledge to use his own plan and go with the public option? His response:
“…if it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.
In otherwords, no. He wouldn’t use his own plan. Like everyone else, he wants the very best. That means use of private insurers. With a government regulated health plan, they’re going to cut cost by limiting what treatment can be done.
The GOP Senators also have a concern.
“At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice,” the senators wrote.
“The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.”
Obama responds by saying that they’re wrong. Obama has no executive experience. He has no business experience. How can he say they are wrong? Obama claims that the public option would have lower administrative costs. That’s a bunch of horse pucky. Since when has government ever had lower costs? It never has. Take Congress as an example. Congress can’t even live within it’s means. Now Obama is promising that a public run health care system will cost us less?
Obama continues on to say that:
he didn’t understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan.
He also said:
that the private sector might not necessarily be better, point out that users of Medicare and Veterans Administration hospitals constantly rate “pretty high satisfaction.”
The reason that he doesn’t understand is because he is dumb. He apparently doesn’t remember the VA hospital fiasco a couple years back. The only reason Medicare and the VA have “pretty high satisfaction” is because they have unlimited money through tax dollars. If the public plan is to compete and ofter the same great service, we will spend more than the promised “low administrative costs.”
And the only reason the administrative costs “might” be lower is because the costs is subsidized by the government. Since the private sector uses the free market, that is how much the services are worth. When government offers something for less, they have to subsidize it. It ends up costing more. How ever much we “save” on administrative costs are collected through taxes.
