by One Vike
We have all heard about the many nightmares associated with government taking over the health-care industry, but are we really ready for the actual consequences? Think about that for a moment and let the many possibilities sink into the gray matter inside your skull. When all is said and done there really are no limits. And please do not give me any of this foolishness about the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats forcing amendments into the final bill that will disallow certain procedures or conversely that there will be no limitations upon the care given to Americans. I am not saying that there will be no amendments, or that the liberals in control won't be forced to accept some conditions they dislike to get the bill passed and signed into law. No, what I am talking about is what will happen should this bill, in whatever form, become the law of the land. After all, I have learned through the years that whatever laws get passed by congress eventually get changed by unelected and unaccountable judges.
Judicial changes in our laws have made this country much different than it was when I was born. When I was a child, abortion was illegal, parents were considered the rulers of their homes and their children while the teachers actually taught their students to read books about Jack and Jill not Heather has two Mommies or Daddies got a friend. Also, Dad was portrayed as a man who worked hard and deserved to be respected and looked up to, not ridiculed like Homer Simpson. Sadly, the world I live in now is changed and not for the better. I've learned that I am in the minority when it comes to common sense. When I think of this massive bill being debated in Congress my thoughts automatically wander to the future with visions of politically appointed judges deciding what these fools in Congress actually meant when they voted for the takeover of 1/7 of the American economy.
History tells us that eventually an activist lawyer will be in front of some judge trying to convince him that the men who wrote this bill really meant to say something that is not in it, regardless of the language. So it will inevitably come down to a politically appointed judge deciding what will be and what will not be covered by the governments health care bill. Look around at the many laws we now live under and you will see that many of the major laws have been forced upon us by activists using the courts to enact law, the constitution, the representative system, and the voters be damned. Or has everyone been living in the closet for the last 50 years, because from my vantage point I see a country manipulated by unaccountable activist judges. And once we have Obama care, it will inevitably end up in front of some hack judge at some level who will decide what is covered and what is limited.
OK, now that I have your attention, I ask that you take a gander at the pictures posted with this article. These are pictures of men who have had gender re-assignment procedures. That's right, they have all had sex change operations. If they were standing in front of you naked, you would think they were women, right down to the removeadickfrome surgery. Republicans have attempted to get an amendment added to the bill that would deny keep such operations from being covered, just as they are attempting to keep abortions from being covered. The language in their amendment has the following section in it:
"None of the funds authorized or appropriated under this act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be used to cover any part or portion of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of” any sex or gender reassignment procedure, surgery related to such a sex change, hormone therapy for a sex change or pre- and post-operation treatments for a sex change."
As of the time I am writing this article I’m not sure if the amendment has passed, but does it matter? Like I said, it will inevitably come down to some judge at some level, maybe even the Supreme Court, who will eventually decide the limits of health care. This is the same Supreme Court, minus one or two judges or plus one or two, that gave us Roe v. Wade on abortion, upheld campaign finance reform, mandated school busing, ruled that carbon dioxide is poison, etc. etc. etc. Knowing this, are you confident that your future health care will be secure in the hands of such individuals? I'm not! Check out this document where convicts appealed a lower court ruling in an attempt to get their gender reassignment covered by the government. They failed, but history shows us that individuals like those of Transadvocate will never stop trying, and eventually they will find a judge who will agree with them.
So let's look at what America will be like in 20 to 30 years after an entire new generation of men have been raised in our education system. If progressives continue to have their way, it will be an education system that will have spent years brainwashing young men with reading material and a curriculum forced upon them from the time they were 6 years old. Believe me, there has been more than enough evidence to prove that Obama's Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, has a perverted idea of how our boys should be raised. If you doubt me, I strongly suggest some research into the GLSEN material being handed to your sons at some schools across America. I caution you though, because what you will see will be very perverted and graphic, but your children have probably already seen it. So what do you think 30 years of such schooling will do to the minds of young men in America? The way I see it, if you are smart you might want to raise your boys to be very aware of whom they are dating. Again, I ask that you study the pictures I’m posting with this story.
Take 30 years of homosexual activism in schools from kindergarten to college, then add Obama's health care that some judge will rule has to cover gender re-assignment procedures, and what will you have? Think it won't happen? Think again, because all it will take is a judge or even the Supreme Court to rule that the government has to cover the surgery because it is not about elective cosmetic surgery, it is about correcting a medical abnormality just like surgically repairing a persons legs if they were born with deformed legs and feet, or someone suffering from cancer. So the American taxpayers will eventually pay for the $50,000 to $100,000 operation plus any ongoing medical needs that may arise from such an operation, an operation that is for many Americans morally wrong.
I call it the queering of American men by Obama and Jennings, and it is happening right in front of us. Want to change it? We can, but it will take a concerted effort to replace every politician who votes for the bill, and any who refuses to stand in the way of it getting passed. America is at a crossroads, and we can either fight and take it back, or watch our sons and grandsons become some of the hundreds of thousands who will be inspired to get gender re-assignment procedures at the taxpayers expense because of the gender identity disorder they suffer from, just like the men in the pictures.
Morally questionable.
Truly.
Of course, some folks think the 50-100,000 dollar cost is what is morally questionable.
Still others have no problem whatsoever making scads of cash of sick people.
Who can say whose morals should predominate?
Perhaps the most "moral" health care we could provide would be non-profit.
Yeah, abortion was illegal. Women died hideous deaths and children were raised in misery. Big plus.
Yeah, parents ruled their homes ... and children were raised in misery. Same sort of plus.
And what is it to you ... exactly ... what harm is done you ... exactly ... if Sally has five Mommys? Neither Sally, nor her Mommys, are any of your damned business.
Dude ... take a pill. You need one. Desparately.
We are going to have national healthcare ... sort of ... finally. And you are, again, on the wrong side of history. Don't it get boring?
And old white guys will drool in the corner of the government run retirement centers. Totally oblivious to the world as their care givers pump them full of Obama's pain killers.
But you will be fine with that, because you are sure that my ancestors had something to do with someone elses misery in this country
"Yeah, abortion was illegal. Women died hideous deaths and children were raised in misery."
And slutty, irresponsible women tell themselves that having a child sucked from their womb is not a "hideous death" and therefore don't mind doing it again and again. "Big plus."
"Yeah, parents ruled their homes ... and children were raised in misery"
Oh yeah...we're doing sooooooooo much better now...heavy drug/alcohol use that often begins in grade school, homelessness, gangs, school drop outs, millions without a clue as to their true parentage, school shootings, rapes, teachers that love their students a little too much...and NOW just for fun will be asked to to teach them EXACTLY how to have sex in public. "Some sort of plus".
"Neither Sally, nor her Mommys, are any of your damned business."
Exactly right! EXCEPT they are constantly "in your face" and shoving their private lives into the public domain, making demands for special consideration. Can't have it both ways...it's private or it isn't.
"We are going to have national healthcare ... sort of ... finally."
And if "we" do, "we" will absolutely ruin the best health care on the planet...and pay dearly for it. Wow...what an improvement!
Yes it is obvious real men are being phased out by the government in school indoctrination. They are trying to breed out the patriot spirit for total population control. It isn't going to work...... it is sick and disgusting what is happening!
This time I have to strongly disagree with many of the conclusions drawn here and the subject matter itself. Even the title smacks of hate, we don't normally use words like "queer" in a social context or any of its extentions "queering" because it's in the same category as other derrogatory words used to demean and degrade a whole class of people.
In the past we've always been very family oriented and we've kept subjects to a high moral level. We've always addressed serious issues of great importance to the nation and the community, but this sex change stuff is tabloid material and I am embarassed we have it here.
However, I'm bound by our rules of free speech to leave it posted unless the author wishes to retract it. But, it's against my personal values to have such material on PS.
Like I said, we're a family column and a lot of grade school and high school aged kids either read our work or use our material for the classroom. The XXX links provided in the article don't deserve any attention to be brought to them.
That's just my personal opinion and you're free to take exception. Jack Lee
I can't imagine the emotional pain that had to accompany the decisions made by these individuals and I certainly cannot explain why people are confronted and conflicted in this way. I have great empathy for their personal struggles.
HOWEVER, the solution being suggested, and indeed forced, into some public school systems is not acceptable and must be countered. We can only do that by making the public aware of what is happening. I don't especially like posting this kind of material either, unfortunately, it is being shoved into the public awareness by the schools czar, NAMBLA and others.
Appropriate strong warnings in the article's links should be heeded.
I can appreciate the emotional pain as well, however we're still G rated.
We should feel free to attack creepy, sick organizations like NAMBLA... don't get me wrong. It's just that we have an obligation to our readers as having material appropriate for all ages.
Those links were XXX! I'll leave it go at that.
Go ahead and pull the link if you like. However, what you call XXX, is what is being handed to children in elementary schools across this country. They have seen it and continue to see other things that you are too afraid to admit as evidence in the conversation of what is going on in our schools.
Back in the "70"s there was an incremental beginning of introducing homosexuality as normal sexual behavior in shows like "Soap" and "Mary Hartman Mary Hartman". It continued on through to the "80"s with "Threes Company" and many like me sounded the alarms then. Like now the warnings were condemned because they came with graphic discussions of what was planned for Americas future.
Well, here it is 2009, and we are now so numb to the homosexualization of America that we are having to pass amendments to protect the sanctity of marriage. Mark my words, the conclusions I gave you are not only possible, but already happening in countries that have state run health care systems. So yes, we will pay for it eventually if Jennings and Obama get their way.
Also, as we speak we have more and more of our society accepting homosexuality as normal. I have said before that it will be just a matter of time before we have government sanctioned same sex marriages. Wake up and look at what the children are being forced to accept by the public school system. We are turning the next generation of voters into morally apathetic individuals who will consider Christian ideals as archaic, and it is conservatives like you who will stand back and allow it to happen because you are afraid to allow the evidence to be presented. Like I said, you are too late about the kids, what they see in schools right now makes the graphics at that link tame in comparison.
I challenge you go to school and see what they are being shown in videos and books on a weekly basis. The parents need to know, because the MSM is not doing its job of informing them. It is up to us to do their job.
Pull the link like I said.
"And old white guys will drool in the corner of the government run retirement centers."
Dude, this scenario has existed for some 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Where have you been?
"And slutty, irresponsible women tell themselves that having a child sucked from their womb ..."
Better that ... than that some poor child should spend 18 years victimized by a slutty, irresponsible woman. The fetus is not sentient. The five year old certainly is. You don't think of the child at all, do you?
You are quite baldly malicious. Up until now, I really wouldn't have thought so.
"Yes it is obvious real men are being phased out by the government in school indoctrination."
Dude, there is no indoctrination ... there is only looking around ... and seeing what there is to see ... veritable legions of men abandoning their children, all throughout history. Any work needs going, YOU need to do.
You come see me when it's done.
Oh, God ... I shudder at the reprecussions, but OneVike ... most (depending on their geneological inheritance) one, two, three, and/or four-year-olds ... how shall we say ... play with themselves. Evolved parents explain about public decorum. Unevolved parents expound upon sin. And our public schools try to forge a common ground between these two highly disparate points of view by firstly and foremostly acknowledging the fact.
My Lord God! I hope you have no children. Just what the planet needs ... more people schooled in sexual aberration.
Sigh.
Damn! I missed it! The porno link!
How am I supposed to trash OneVike's inference that the porno link is in any way connected to school curricula? Cause I'm sure it's all total horsepucky, like all OneVikes posts.
"Better that ... than that some poor child should spend 18 years victimized by a slutty, irresponsible woman."
Your point is well taken, however, having a careless disregard for human life, having the feminist attitude of "me me me, I can do what ever I want and have it all", and having casual attitudes toward sex, marriage, men, the family, and drug use have greatly influenced this slutty irresponsible behavior that results in the "victimization" of children, both born and unborn. Pointedly, lack of religious values also play a major role in the victimization of children, both born and unborn.
"The fetus is not sentient."
By your standards, no. Robotics have not set in. A fetus has no sense of his body being who he is. That's what makes us "beings"...of the human kind.
"You don't think of the child at all, do you?"
The child is my main focus of concern...including those who choose, like an irresponsible child, to have their unborn baby sucked from their wombs. Think of it as a willingness to consider "the big picture".
"You are quite baldly malicious."
And you...are projecting.
If the women who become men and the men who become women hook up... is it a zero sum game? lol
"If the women who become men and the men who become women hook up... is it a zero sum game?"
Would that there were enough such persons to bring the planet's human population to stasis. No such luck.
OneVike, one can accept a growing tolerance of homosexuality while still thinking that graphic illustrations and explanations of sex acts like the ones you posted are not appropriate subject matter in the classroom. It is silly to conflate the two.
What we are experiencing right now is a backlash. It happened in the 60s with the sexual revolution and the Black Panthers, and it is happening now. Throughout history, wherever there is progress, there is also overcompensation. All of the social ills that conservatives (rightfully) protest against are, I believe, a result of greater freedom. Unfortunately, not everyone uses that freedom responsibly. Right now we are seeing a backlash from the gay community that has been going on since before the outbreak of the AIDS virus. You may thing that gay people are just naturally more promiscuous and irresponsible, but I disagree. My theory, shared by many, is that they are acting out in response to years of oppression. Now, I do not say this in order to absolve their community of responsibility for their actions. But again, this is a common response to increased freedoms. Homosexuals have never had the same rights as heterosexuals. They have been socially ostracized and made to feel ashamed for loving someone of the same gender. They have little to no examples for how to live a responsible gay lifestyle. Many of them are depressed and angry and messed up, not because homosexuality is itself a mental problem, but because that's what happens to a person when they are treated like dirt for their entire lives.
Perhaps if gays were truly treated as equal--if they were not marginalized and forced into the dark corners of society for loving someone of the same gender--then their behavior would change.
Yes, there will always be those exceptional people among us who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and beat the odds. I know many of these people, and they are to be admired. But it's called "beating the odds" for a reason. Our species as a whole tends to live up to the expectations set for us. If gays (or blacks, etc.) are expected to be degenerates, many of them will be.
Acceptance of gays is not the enemy, OneVike. Your solutions--persecution and attempting to "convert" them--are proven failures, and they create the kind of people who think that this type of extreme sexual subject matter is appropriate in schools. But conflating them with all homosexuals, and conflating pornography and child molestation with the natural impulses of teens to learn about sex, and their need to do so in a safe and responsible way, is counter-productive.
After the 60's, the Black Panther movement and other outrageous movements of left-wing terrorism mostly died out. The time for shocking people with dramatic displays was passing. The same need to shock, to demonstrate, to provoke, will die out when homosexuals are more equal in our society. When they can marry someone regardless of their gender. When they have more positive examples of responsible homosexuals. When they are not expected to fail.
Sorry that was kind of ranty--I hope I got my point across.
Sorry K, but the only way to increase the numbers of people who practice homosexual behavior is to enlist them when they are still confused about sexuality as a whole. Such as all teens are when their hormones are raging.
As for the Black Panthers whom you claim have mostly died out. Have you checked out Obama and his followers? They are the very Black panthers who went into hiding until the left could demonize normality to the point that individuals like you cannot see them in the things they are doing.
Have you ever heard of the Zebra killings from the early "70"s in the bay area? If not I will write an article to let you know and who they were.
Well many of the killers were never caught, and it is the belief of many that they are actually leaders in many black communities of the Bay area and across the country today.
No, it is my opinion that you are not only confused about the truth, but you also do not understand the evil which you wish to normalize.
"Sorry K, but the only way to increase the numbers of people who practice homosexual behavior is to enlist them when they are still confused about sexuality as a whole."
And you know this how?
There is no evidence that the number of homosexuals has "increased" or is increasing. The number of OUT homosexuals has grown, of course, due to increased acceptance.
I know many homosexuals...none of them were ever "enlisted," nor do they attempt to "enlist" others. The idea that there is some sort of conspiracy to turn your children gay is a myth on par with the rantings of nuts who claim that Jewish bankers control the world or that 9/11 was planned by the Bush administration. It's also a profound case of projection; it's conservative Christians who evangelize, recruit, and enlist, not homosexuals.
"As for the Black Panthers whom you claim have mostly died out. Have you checked out Obama and his followers? They are the very Black panthers who went into hiding until the left could demonize normality to the point that individuals like you cannot see them in the things they are doing."
I admit that there has been somewhat of a resurgence in the past decade of left-wing extremism. I see this as a reaction to the conservatism of the early 00's. These things come in cycles. We have to work together to maintain a balance. Unfortunately I don't see anyone in politics today attempting to do that, not Obama, and not his detractors. All I see is people clinging to ideology and "their team" so hard that they can't allow any room for grey area or for admitting when they are wrong.
"The number of OUT homosexuals has grown, of course, due to increased acceptance. I know many homosexuals...none of them were ever "enlisted," nor do they attempt to "enlist" others. The idea that there is some sort of conspiracy to turn your children gay is a myth on par with the rantings of nuts who claim that Jewish bankers control the world or that 9/11 was planned by the Bush administration."
If I were a juror, I think that would be one heck of a closing argument! Well done.
K, you have made a very respectable retort against a very formidable adversary. Thank you for keeping this on a high plain as well. However, I would like to see some credible statistics to support either side.... anyone?
To both K and Jack;
I will get more information for you K, but for now I will stand upon two points of evidence to back up my stance that humans are not born to be homosexual, but in fact they must be recruited into the abhorrent behavior. I offer you evidence for those who have faith in God and the Scriptures, and I offer evidence for those who would God as the Creator of the universe and everything in it but instead hold to the theory of evolution.
1.) God and the Bible.....
Taking the above Scripture to its inevitable conclusion, I categorically state that God has forbidden any ans all sexual activity outside of one man and one woman within the context of marriage, and thus considers it all sin. Exodus 20:14 & Leviticus 20:10-21. When sexual expression is taken outside the confines of marriage of one man and one woman it always results in inner personal damage, and is destructive to the stability of the family unit. Abhorrent sexual behavior always creates emotionally painful troubles that damage healthy individuals and their relationships. Often times leading to sickness and chronic health problems. Thus God would not make us in such a way. We sin, but that is not god's fault, it's man's.
Also, God is not only concerned about genital activity between two individuals, He is also concerned with our thoughts, remember what Jesus said about lust being akin to committing the sexual act.
Why would you even consider the idea that the human population is anywhere near a point that we need to limit the number of humans?
According to the US Census Bureau's "U.S. & World Population Clock" as of today at 22:54 UTC (EST+5) the worlds population now stands at 6,803,378,570.
Consider if you will, the state of Texas has 171.079 million acres of land. That would come out to be approximately 39.78 persons per acre of land in Texas. Considering an average sized apartment building that has 16 units with 2 bedrooms and 1 bath each only takes up .62 acres of land. But I'll take this a bit farther for my point that the world is actually very underpopulated.
Now according to the "Household Size and Composition in the Developing World" numbers there are proximately 5 persons per average household in the world. Ok, we have a Mother, a Father, and three children. Mom and dad can have their own room, while the three children can share a bedroom. That would mean we can comfortably put 80 people in a 16 unit apartment complex.
Ok now we have 80 people living in a 16 unit apartment complex built upon a .62 acre area of Texas. Take the population of the world which is 6,803,378,570 people, and divide it by the 16, 5 member families. You will see that you can comfortably fit the whole worlds population in 16 unit apartment complexes that would take up just 85.04 million acres of Texas's 171.079 million acres and still have 86.03 million acres of land left to build roads, schools, businesses and your precious government buildings.
So, in conclusion the world is not overpopulated. It is as I said vastly underpopulated. Just imagine everyone living in Texas and under their laws instead of California's. Then the rest of the world would be free of humans just like you wish. So are you still going to attempt to tell us that the worlds population is such that less people living due to the sick behavior of confused individuals limiting the population would be a good thing?
Like all your other idiotic beliefs the idea that the world is overpopulated is just another lie the left tries to put over on us so they can control us.
I erred, I sould have used the word "Unviable" instead of "viable" in my Darwinism reason why homosexuality cannot be a trait one s born with.
Here is how statement #2 should have been written with the correction in bold type.
2.) Darwin and his theory of evolution....... (this will be much shorter explanation of why homosexuality is not normal behavior)
I only have time to say one thing, OneVike. There are people born without the ability to procreate; this is, surely, an unviable solution to survival. But it still happens, every day. I don't know if it is due to a gene, but I also have never argued that homosexuality is due to a gene (the evidence that is most convincing to me is that it is a mutation caused by stress chemicals in the mother). So if someone can be born like this, why can't they be born homosexual?
Although I do understand your reasoning for your condemnation of homosexuality, I think it is flawed. However, I will refrain from calling you a bigot because it does seem that you are, in your own way, acting out of love, if not logic.
I don't think anyone would argue that the sexual urge is essential for procreation. Beyond that basic purpose sex becomes an expression or an activity. Although we generally can't choose what is already a part of being human, the sexual urge to procreate, we do choose how and with whom (or in some cases what) we express that urge or participate in activities associated with the urge.
I believe that the warnings in the Bible against homosexual activity, and it is a warning, are explicitely aimed at our continuation (procreation) as well as our well being (choice). God makes the rules because He loves us and wants the best for us. When we go against His advice we suffer, sometimes in ways we may never fully realize or understand.
People are free to do whatever they want. People who choose to reject what the Bible says should be free to live as they wish in peace. They should also respect those who do wish to follow Gods advice and laws and raise their children in like manner. It is a great unnecessary offense to explicitely address these issues in public school, IMHO.
I wish the discussion was centered around this very important development which will only expand if we don't make our objections heard now.
A secular article of importance on this issue can be found at Big Hollywood:
“Dear Media Matters: Keep Your Dirty Hands Off the Gay Community – And Our Kids,” by Charles Winekoff
That was a fascinating article, Tina, and I agreed with a lot of what he was saying. It's always nice to read from someone who doesn't fall into a clear-cut ideological category. I vehemently disagree with his denial of white male privilege, but that's for another time.