The gay delusion

People who suffer from same sex attraction are loved by God just as much as anyone else.  Those who suffer from same sex attraction but remain chaste probably get a special place in Heaven due to their heroic actions. But because we must love gays we must tell the truth about the gay lifestyle and its consequences.

If you listen to the mass media noise machine you would think that gays are as common as Blacks. The reality is that roughly 1-2% of people are gay.  Unlike what you see on TV there are very few gays in the world, well at least outside of prisons that is.

You'd also think that being gay is just like being heterosexual. But that too is a lie.  Gays are massively promiscuous, with hundreds of sexual partners, and hardly ever happy; they got the moniker gay as a bit of sarcasm. "Married" gays in the Netherlands don't stay married long nor do they stay faithful to their "spouses".  Most gays don't want to get married because very few gays form long term even remotely monogamous relationships; the gay lifestyle is about anonymous and love free sex.

Gays die younger than smokers; they live decades less than heterosexuals.  If you condemn smoking because it hurts smokers you have to condemn the gay lifestyle for what it does to gays.  Aside from AIDS gays are a huge pool of a plethora of STDs.  To be gay is to be physically sick.

Gays don't have any problem with wife beating, er sadomasochism, and a group that advocated sex with 3 year old boys was welcomed for years in the SF Gay Pride parade. They were kicked out when heterosexuals raised a stink.  Back in 1981 there was a big stink because a health official in SF was teaching a course on how to beat your partner safely. Today he'd probably get a medal.

Gays, like massively promiscuous heterosexuals, tend to be attracted to young kids in their teens. The whole Catholic Priest child abuse crisis is basically gay Priests going after teenage boys--hardly any of the victims of priests are either female or prepubescent.  Not all gays molest children but a disproportionally large fraction is not adverse to or condemning of sex with teens.  In CA a gay man had sadomasochistic sex with a 16 year old boy.  When on trial there was a huge campaign to get him off because the boy was almost 17 years old.  Can you imagine if some heterosexual had sex with a 16 year old girl and beat her up and anyone said that it was ok because the girl was almost 17?

Gays aren't born that way.  Can you imagine a gene that is less likely to survive than one that ensures you don't have any kids?  There is no scientific evidence for being gay being genetic.  The simple reality is that while most gays don't just wake up one morning and decide to be gay being gay is due to environmental factors.  The best indicator of a risk of becoming gay is the lack of a strong father figure; it makes sense gays are men looking for the love their father didn't give them by having sex with other men.  Gays who want to be cured have a good chance of changing their inclinations and being able to live a normal life.

What's really interesting is that it's religion that shows that gays are something other than failures.  From an atheistic perspective all that matters is sending your genes to the future so by the atheistic standards gays are defective losers. Christianity however teaches that all of us are valuable because all of us are loved by God.  But because we love gays we have to point out the reality of the gay lifestyle; if you love a smoker you don't tell him that smoking is a great thing.

The truth is this the gay lifestyle is really horrible.  That doesn't mean gays are horrible but it does mean we shouldn't endorse their bad life choices; not out of hatred but out of love.

We won't be able to prevent the suffering of gays that will result from endorsing their sad and extraordinarily unhealthy lifestyle if we refuse to describe the true nature of homosexuality. The promiscuous love free sex, the diseases, the fixation on beauty--once you lose your looks you're in deep trouble in the gay world were superficiality dominates.

People tend to be cool with gay marriage because they've bought into the lies of the media; that gays are common and that gays are just like heterosexuals. Neither of those things are true. The reality is that the gay lifestyle is short and fixated on hedonism.  Out of love we have to condemn that lifestyle and do our best to help gays get on track to true happiness.

A lack of logic

Have you noticed how so many people no longer think about things?  If you read old political debates, like Lincoln Douglas, you'll see that people actually reasoned about things rather than just go on their "feelings".

I was debating religion with a Protestant on Facebook. Now he's a nice guy who truly loves Jesus but his reasoning is really horrible.

He produced a quote from an early Church Father which said that something, let's call it y.  From that the Protestant inferred that the Church Father believed z.  I then produced a direct quote from the same document by the same Church Father that specifically and explicitly said that the Church Father didn't believe in z.

In a logical world a direct quote trumps a third parties interpretation any day.  But the Protestant said that well he had a quote and I had a quote so his quote was as good as mine.

Now if he'd said oops well I guess that wasn't a good example but here's one that is good I'd have no problem, the guy is getting this stuff from some Protestant web site and he personally has little to no knowledge of what the Church Fathers wrote, but when he can't recognize that a quote that says that the Church Father doesn't believe in z trumps the Protestants interpretation of a quote that does not explicitly say that the Church Father believed in z it's a sign of the death of logic.

Some photos that I like. The two of the church are of Mission San Jose Roman Catholic Church in Fremont CA.

Blacks are a lot less safe now than they were in the 1950's

While Blacks were discriminated against in certain parts of the country--there were no Negro only facilities in the North or most of the West for example--and the overall attitude towards Blacks certainly needed improvement in the 1950's far fewer Blacks died from violence back then than are killed with knives and poison today.

In 2005 at least 203,991 Black babies were aborted--not all states report abortion by race--while in the same year 198,385 Blacks died from the top 7 other causes of death; heart disease, cancer, stroke,accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases--all figures from the CDC.

A pregnant Black woman is 3 times more likely than a pregnant white woman to kill her daughter.  And Obama has no problem with that. Just as Obama has no problem with sex selection abortions; the real war on women since girls are significantly more likely to be aborted than boys among certain groups in the US.

Over 200,000 black babies killed each year with poisons like the morning after pill or by the abortionists knife.  That's racism that makes the KKK look like pikers.

Maybe the millions of blacks who died before they could have a dream, before they could help our country might wish things were more like they were in the 1950's. 

We need to return to the things that were good in the 1950's, such as intact families and an end to genocide against blacks--as Jesse Jackson says--, and reject the things that were bad, discrimination against blacks and the cold war.

The Nuremberg defense and the collapse of the American legal system

It’s well known that many Nazi’s claimed to be innocent of war crimes because they were just “following orders”.  While all agree that that is not an acceptable excuse it does reflect an all too common attitude in life where people declare that so long as what they do is “legal” it must be ok.

What happens is the law or some other authority provides a convenient excuse to allow people whose consciences are weak to not have to face the tough decisions in life.

It’s precisely that sort of mentality that has brought about the destruction of the American legal system.

Ask anyone on the street and they will tell you that the purpose of the legal system is to defend the innocent and punish the guilty. That is the purpose of the justice system is to achieve justice; the system may not succeed but that’s what it should try and do, deliver justice.

Ask a lawyer though and you may get a very different answer.  To many lawyers the purpose of the legal system is to follow the rules. That’s why defense lawyers can use every stratagem to defend child abusers and drug dealers who the lawyers know are guilty as sin yet still sleep easy every night.  In the minds of defense lawyers their high paid acumen is not freeing monsters it’s just following the rules; the rules set the monsters free.

Prosecutors can have a similar mindset though in their case it’s motivated by a concern about being responsible for incorrectly incarcerating an innocent person. 

By making the law about following the rules not about achieving justice lawyers on both sides, and the judges, can avoid having to worry that their mistakes are causing others to suffer unjustly.  After all if both sides follow the rules no one can feel guilty about making a mistake can they?

Yet because no system of rules can be perfect, a fact recognized by the very existence of the jury, following rules rather than seeking justice can lead to the effective collapse of the system.

Contrary to a common perception the primary purpose of the legal system in seeking justice is to deter future crimes either by incarcerating criminals or deterring would be criminals.  Yet if the perception of the legal system is that it can be gamed or even worse that it’s essentially ineffectual then the legal system will no longer deter crimes or punish offenders in a rational manner.

But for the legal system to be effective the laws have to support the objective of protecting the innocent and convicting the guilty.  Yet since the radical Supreme Court decisions of the 1960’s the law as been defined as being about following rules not about making sure the guilty are convicted.

While it was a good thing to crack down on police maleficence, since that can lead to the railroading of the innocent, it’s not good to let technicalities throw out clearly damming physical evidence.  Nor should the police have to let suspects know they can ignore the cops and let their lawyer do the talking.  If the suspect is dumb enough to talk and produce evidence known only to the guilty party a system dedicated to justice should encourage the suspect to spill his guts; in a non-literal way.  Justice is served by truth not by deliberately obscuring the facts.

And it’s a good thing when most defense lawyers are bums who can’t make a good living or at least honest enough to not use technicalities to free rapists.  Crooks make money; that’s why they’re crooks. If money can buy them out of jail then it’s clear the system has a problem.  We need defense lawyers who tell defendants who are guilty to plead guilty and concentrate on making sure the punishment isn’t too severe.  Instead we have defense attorneys who will all too gladly use procedural tricks—err rules—to disallow objectively valid evidence. While we can argue that a confession may or not be valid it’s hard to see why the 20 kilos of heroin found in the trunk of a guy who deals drugs to grade school kids should be thrown out because 5 judges after 3 months of thought decide the cop on the scene didn’t have sufficient reason to look in the trunk.

But making a distinction between a cop who’s violating peoples rights in an egregious fashion and one who just came up with a different interpretation of the situation in the thirty seconds he had than the well paid judges did in the three months they spent sipping single malt scotch while contemplating the case requires people to take responsibility; it requires lawyers to take the same burden that doctors do.

Doctors, like lawyers, are high paid and well educated. But every doctor knows that they are not infallible. Every doctor makes mistakes, honest mistakes.  And one of the reasons that people don’t mind doctors making a lot of money is that they realize that doctors have to live with the consequences of their failures.  If most people mess up the consequences don’t involve people dying but with doctors being human caries the price tag of being responsible for the deaths of people.

If we can expect doctors to make the hard decisions there is no reason we shouldn’t demand that high paid lawyers have to carry a much lighter burden—after all only a tiny fraction of criminals are ever executed.

It’s time to throw out the technicalities—like search warrants with the wrong date—and concentrate on keeping the police in line by punishing cops who really violate people’s rights and on making sure that the crooks are put where they can’t harm people. 

Let’s bring truth back into the legal system and make law about justice not technicalities.

free to follow tom on Twitter

Shocker! It was fanatical muslims! Who'da thought?

Now that we know that the Boston bombing was the result of radical Islam we can all sleep soundly since the same liberals who told us that Boston was the work of conservatives have told us that Muslims are not bad.

The first words out of Obama's mouth were essentially don't judge.  But why shouldn't we judge?  Right now the most likely source of terrorist violence in America are not the pro-life groups, Catholics, and Evangelicals labeled as violent by the Southern Poverty Law Center but Muslims; you know the folks who think women are property.  The same left wing wackos who have no problem judging Catholics and Evangelicals because those religious people believe in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are telling us we can't judge Muslims for repeated acts of mass murder.

Back in the 1960's in England it was the Irish.  Today pretty much anywhere in the world it's Muslims.  In 30 years it may be the French but for now it's the Muslims and that's what we have to deal with if we want to avoid more senseless slaughter of innocents.

While the vast majority of Muslims wouldn't bomb anyone today in the real world we live in enough Muslims are willing to kill people just because those people don't believe in the made up religion of Mohammad--which gave him wealth, power, and multiple wives--that a sane person knows that if there's the mindless killing of innocents it's probably the work of Muslims.

Additionally unlike most other groups that use violence Muslims are keen to target the innocent. Timothy McVeigh--the liberal boogie man--targeted a Federal building.  Sure because he's a monster he was willing to label the children killed in the day care center as acceptable collateral damage but at least he was targeting a government building.  With the exception of the "workplace" violence perpetrated by the Muslim psychiatrist down in Ft Hood and the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan most Muslim terror is directed against civilians; even other Muslim civilians.

That's why I was pretty sure that the Boston bombing wasn't some anti-government wacko; they'd have targeted something related to the government not a free grouping of innocent men, women, and children.

We need to wake up and profile the most likely terrorists; Muslims. While most Muslims aren't terrorists nearly all terrorists are Muslim.  We can't ignore everyone else, in today's West too many non-Arabs are falling for what Mohammads minions are pitching, but we need to concentrate resources where they will do the most good.

Of course if the terrorists were Catholics who were protesting the mass slaughter of the unborn in American you can bet the same people who are saying we can't be hating on radical Islam would be first in line to demand that the Catholic Church be shut down and Catholics forced into ghettos.

We can't be like liberals though.  While we need to recognize that radical Islam is the problem and radicalized Muslims are the perpetrators we also need to show compassion and love for the vast majority of Muslims who are not actively violent.

Taking off the gloves

President Obama declared that people who oppose his attempts to disarm honest law abiding Americans "lied" to the American people.

Perhaps it's about time for conservatives to call President Obama out for his unending stream of lies. Perhaps it's time for Republicans to learn to stop being civil since it doesn't seem to win them elections.

Civility is fine when your opponent is honest and your differences are based on honest disagreements.  Today however many liberal politicians, starting with Obama, are neither honest about what they really want for the country, usually running as conservatives and then governing as liberals, nor really supportive of improving America so much as remaking America in the image of the failed socialist states of Europe.

If conservatives act as though liberals are all just nice people then it's easier for liberals to hide the true nature of the evil policies they support. We know that a big factor of why Obama won was that people viewed him as likeable.  Maybe if conservatives had pointed out why Obama is not in fact likeable, such as his support of infanticide or his lying to the public on what he'd do in his first term, Romney might have won.

Maybe if Romney had called Obama a liar to his face in the debates and then explained why we might not have to be fighting to protect our First and Second Amendment rights today.

There are dates and then there are dates

Back when the Americans were killed in Benghazi liberals told us that there was no reason that Secretary of State Clinton should have been concerned about Islamic terrorists attacking on 9/11.

Yet now liberal commentators are declaring that it’s obvious that an anti-government American is behind the Boston Marathon bombing because Monday was Tax Day.

While it could be home grown anti-government terrorists it’s interesting that for liberals in one case dates are meaningless and in another they are obviously significant.

Boston and the blame game

We don't know who was behind the terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon.  It may have been anti-government radicals--though the fact that apparently some bombs didn't go off would tend to rule out spiritual descendents of Timothy McVeigh--, it may have been Occupy Wall Street members--like most liberals they're not good at making working bombs--, it could have been an established terrorist organization, or it could have just been some Jihadist wanna be's acting on their own.

What's interesting is that in today's world a rational person's first go to assumption would be that any terrorist act is likely to have been committed by Islamic Fundamentalists.  Now that doesn't mean that we should go out and condemn Muslims before the evidence is in but it does mean that in the absence of evidence speculating that conservatives are to blame says more about the bigotry of the left than it does about the nature of the terrorists.

Just as atheists ignore all violence by atheists--Stalin was an atheist and he was trying to crush religion in the Soviet Union but his mass murders say nothing about atheism--liberals tend to wish away all violence by liberals.  In the minds of liberals if OWS participants rape women it's nothing and if an abortionist like Gosnell kills babies that were born alive it only shows why abortion should be legal--go figure--but if the one member of the Tea Party says something bad all Tea Party members are monsters.

While this atrocity may have been perpetrated by anti-government churls, it is Tax Day after all, historically anti-government extremists have gone after the government.  McVeigh didn't park his truck bomb next to a Walmart for example.  Islamic fanatics do tend to go after civilians rather than the government however.

We'll find out eventually but for now keep your eye on the liberal pundits who will try to blame anyone they don't like.  It'll help you learn how the media works and how important the unconscious biases of the media are in shaping the "objective" news we hear from the Main Stream Media.

Since our new Pope has a fondness for St. Francis of Assisi I thought this would be a nice picture for this Sunday.  It's from Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo Roman Catholic Church in Carmel CA

Better living through mass murder

"Dr." Gosnell is on trial for not only providing horrible medical care to women who wanted to kill their daughters but for killing on the order of a hundred babies who survived his abortion attempts.

He will easily become America's greatest serial killer and the only one paid by parents to kill their children.

If pro-choice reporters actually cared about women they'd be up in arms trying to figure out how women could be provided such poor care. Yet there is only silence. Perhaps because those who are "pro-choice" are really only in favor of killing the unborn.  While the average American only supports abortion in the hard cases and early in pregnancy the abortion fanatics are so comfortable with killing the unborn they defend China's one baby policy where women are forced to abort their unborn children.

Abortion is a choice in the same way being killed by a mugger is a choice.  In both cases the person who stands to benefit from the killing is the one who gets to make the choice.

Women are often pressured into abortions and we need to be there to help them but we can't stop saying what abortion really is; a killing of convenience in 98%+ of cases.

Gun control and liberals love of crooks

It's interesting that the same liberals who advocate for gun control advocate for laws that make it hard to convict people who use guns in crimes. Liberals also are all for minimizing the punishment meted out to those who use guns in crimes.

Liberals advocate letting criminals, including those you used guns in their crimes, out of jail early if the living conditions in prison are not good enough.  Yet when those criminals commit more gun crimes liberals blame guns not the criminals.

If liberals were really interested in protecting the children they'd be for making it easier to convict people who use guns illegally and for increased sentencing for illegal gun use.  Yet liberals support neither of these approaches.

The reality is that liberals want to make it hard for law abiding citizens to have guns so that people will be more dependent on the government. If you can't defend yourself you'll be much more likely to vote to raise taxes to pay for more police for example.

Divine Mercy Sunday

God yearns to forgive us.  He has so much Mercy He asked for His Divine Mercy to be celebrated in a special way. As a result the Church gives us Divine Mercy Sunday.  A day on which we can be granted a plenary indulgence which removes all of the temporal punishment our sins have merited. While our sins are forgiven in the sacrament of Confession the punishment due to us for our sins is not. But because God loves us so much He has had His Church define ways we can avoid suffering the just punishment for our sins.

Check this site for a description of what you need to do to be granted a plenary indulgence on Divine Mercy Sunday.

Infanticide incoming!

In Florida a Planned Parenthood representative told legislators that a baby born alive after a botched abortion could be killed by her mother and her mothers doctor.

We've been told that abortion is ok because a woman's unborn daughter is dependent on the woman. But now we see that the reality is that the even when a girl is born her mother can still kill her so long as the mother made it clear before her daughter was born that she wanted to kill her daughter.

It's like Nazi Germany; kill enough and it becomes no big deal.  Once people get used to killing their children before birth they become desensitized to the thought of killing even their own daughters once they're born.  After all if it's ok for a woman to take a contract out on her daughter right up to the moment of birth why can't she let the hitman try again right after her daughter is born?

Theft by any other name

When my ancestors came to America the country let anyone in.  That's what supporters of illegal immigrants want today.

The problem is is that back when my ancestors came over the government didn't pay for anything.  People either made it on their own or got voluntary help from private charities, their local church etc.  If they couldn't make it they either went back to where they came from or lived impoverished lives.

Additionally the average American paid little, by current standards, in taxes.  Income tax was only for the extremely wealthy for example.

Today in America the poor have their bills paid by compulsory collections from from their fellow citizens who are forced to pay, directly and indirectly, a huge fraction of their earnings to the government.

Illegal aliens welch off Americans in two ways; they get lots of free services including in several states tuition breaks to college--hardly a necessity-- and they don't have to pay many taxes. Both of these subsidies allow illegals to accept lower wages than Americans.

Contrary to urban myths there is no job, gardener etc, in America which is not filled mostly by Americans. That means that there is no job that Americans feel is beneath them. What is true is that if unscrupulous business men can get illegals, who are cheap partially because they're subsidized by Americans, to work for less than Americans those business men will offer to pay less for a job than Americans can afford to work for.

Therefore in a time of high unemployment where wages are pushed down illegals have a significant impact on the least skilled of Americans who are looking for work.

We are told that illegals are just like our ancestors in that they're just looking for a better life.  That is true but what is not true is that illegals are fleeing starvation or death.  People don't starve in Mexico. There is no need to go to America; only a desire for better life.  Now there are some illegals from other countries who are fleeing starvation or political execution but they are a tiny fraction of the total illegal population.

As such when considering a path to citizenship for illegals it should be noted that illegals are not law abiding people. It's unclear what fraction of illegals actually carry their own weight in that they don't have the American Government pay their bills.  Those illegals are reasonable folk but even they have demonstrated a belief that the law does not apply to them.  Illegals who avail themselves of free medical care--free to them but costly to Americans-- or other services--including in state college tuition in states like California--show that they have the "it's my due" mentality which is helping destroy the American economy.

Everyone knows the majority of illegals will vote for Democrats because Democrats are the party of thieves, tax workers to buy the votes of non-workers.  What is not thought of is that people who break the law to advance their own economic status and who have no problem being supported by the efforts of others are not the sort of people who made this country great.

Most American's ancestors came to America because it was the land of opportunity; a place where their hard work would be rewarded.  Many illegals have that attitude but no one has made a case for treating those illegals who don't live off the government differently from those who do when considering who should become citizens.  Something along the lines of having to go say 7 years with absolutely no government subsidy--no emergency room medical care, no food stamps, etc--before qualifying for citizenship.  For those 7 years either the people support themselves or they are supported by voluntary contributions--which are wonderful.  Liberals of course won't contribute their own dollars to help illegals and as such they would be unlikely to contribute to private charities that would help immigrants who hit a rough patch.  Instead, as with all other things, liberals want others to be taxed to pay for what liberals want.

Illegals aren't , in general, monsters.  If our ancestors had had the same opportunities for living off the government as liberals provide to illegals our ancestors would have probably availed themselves just as much as illegal aliens do today.  But America can't succeed if a large part of the population thinks they can get subsidized just by voting for the candidates who will steal money from workers.

Immigration law in America needs dramatic reform.  We need a guest worker program to select the people who, like our ancestors, just want a chance not a handout and to protect immigrants from exploitation by unscrupulous employers. What we don't need is a blanket path to let anyone who can sneak across the border get on the welfare rolls.