(A Child at 12 Weeks)
"Legion" has some thoughts on Planned Parenthood.
(A Child at 12 Weeks)
"Legion" has some thoughts on Planned Parenthood.
"Ernie" has some thoughts on LGBT issues.A good friend of mine (I'll call him Stu) confided in me that his pride and joy, his 16 year old grandson, announced to his parents that he was "gay". The boy (I'll call him Bobby) said he had felt these tendencies for over a year and had read numerous articles on the net about homosexuality before conceding that he was indeed gay. His dad was devastated and tried to convince Bobby that he was too young and inexperienced to know that for sure. He begged him to give it time and even recommended reputable counseling. But Bobby was adamant that everything he'd read on the subject left no doubt in his mind. It was something he was born with and there was nothing that could change him.Since I have a grandson the same age it caused some anxiety on my part so I decided to go on the net and see what kind of information had convinced Bobby he was homosexual. I really wanted to find if there were any signs a parent (or grandparent) could watch for that might suggest these tendencies developing in a young person. I only investigated males, so I can't speak on lesbianism.Well, it didn't take long to realize that 90% of what I found on the net was sponsored by the LGBT group. I couldn't find one article on the "signs" a parent could watch for, and any kind of guide that could help a teenager evaluate his sexuality. The LGBT articles were basically extolling the virtues of the gay lifestyle. Seemed nothing more than "recruitment" pieces to me.In examining the 10% that weren't LGBT I found several articles on how and why transversion therapy didn't work. Even people who completed the therapy eventually reverted back to homosexuality. I did find an article that explained how most teens who think they're homosexual had been victimized in their young life by an older, charismatic "gay" person, so parents should watch for older males who show an unusual interest in their much younger son. Other influences were also mentioned such as bullying, loners, etc.In today's new age, pop sub-culture it's obvious that anything, or anyone, that defies tradition is applauded and admired. Reaching an almost celebrity status among their subculture peers. And that applies to virtually everything we older people value and try to teach our children. Transgenders, cross dressers, lesbians, homosexual marriages and all the other perversion forced on children today as the way of the future is relentless. Movies, TV Shows, TV Ads, music, media and liberals everywhere. It's hard to imagine how less than 2% of our entire population ever garnered so much political clout. But think about it. These groups see an ally in leftwing liberalism so they organize, gather donations and send big dollars to liberal candidates. The more money they send, the more favorablelaws and press they receive. The democrat party now rests comfortably in the pockets of these and other anti-American groups.I guess I'll have to face it, morality is dead in today's culture. The Supreme Court just confirmed it.
"Rook" has some thoughts about Donald Trump.
Once again Trump sucks all the oxygen out of the atmosphere and leaves his GOP rivals gasping for air and grasping at straws to stay relevant. Trump's comments about disfigured former POW John McCain weren't meant to be mean, just the strategy of a master showman. Once again he draws nearly all attention of the media away from the other candidates and to himself. In the entertainment industry they say bad publicity is still publicity and way better than no publicity. The other candidates can put up a front of annoyance, even contempt or disgust at Trump's remarks. But secretly they're all jealous of Trump's ability to keep the spotlight on himself.
When things slow down and the candidates start talking about relevant issues again, Trump will cast Obama and Hillary as treasonous Muslim sympathizers and call on the Justice Department to indict them both. Then he'll call on Congress, including many of his rival candidates, to impeach Obama. That will surely put them between a rock and a hard place during the debates. "Don't you believe Obama should be impeached? Then why haven't you sponsored an impeachment bill? Even if the RNC tried to keep the subject out of the debates, Trump would bring it up anyway. He's number one in the polls, so what are they going to do?
Trump is the Ring Master of this circus, Congress are the clowns, the other candidates are the aerial acrobats, the media are the big cats and the public are the elephants.
Posted at 03:50 PM in Abortion, China, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Talk Radio | Permalink | Comments (4)
"Peter" has some thoughts about Obama's treaty with Iran.
Obama says the Iran Nuclear deal is the only option to war. Obama says it guarantees blockage of “every pathway to a nuclear bomb.” Obama says IAEA inspectors will have unfettered access to suspicious sites. Obama lies a lot!
War is not the only other option. Ratcheting up the sanctions to intolerable levels would bring Iran back to the table, hat in hand.
This “deal” isn’t worth the paper it’s written on because it does NOT block every pathway to a nuclear bomb. The “unfettered” access Obama asserts IAEA inspectors will have can be blocked by endless litigation through several levels of committees and commissions, on which Iran will have a seat at every level. Verification is mitigated by the “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” (the endless litigation clause) in Part Q contained in an annex to the agreement. There is NO provision in the deal for 24/7 access by IAEA inspectors anywhere, let alone at suspicious sites.
Obama is downplaying the concessions he and Kerry have made to Iran because they don’t want the public to know what inept, dishonest and untrustworthy negotiators they have been. But even they aren’t so stupid as not to understand the consequences of this “deal”: Bad for most of the Arab states in the Middle East; Bad for Israel; Bad for our own national security interests; and Bad for the economic stability of the rest of the world.
Obama and Kerry misrepresented the “deal” while they were putting it together and they continue to misrepresent it to the media, the public and the Congress. The truth must be brought to all the democrats in the Congress so that we can overcome Obama’s threatened veto of legislation which would cancel the “deal” for the sake of the world.
Obama is only concerned about his legacy. With this "deal" he has guaranted his legacy as the most dishonest, incompetent and destructive POTUS in history.
"Legion" has some comments on Donald Trump.
Posted at 10:01 PM in Abortion, China, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Ecology, Economy, Education, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2)
Posted at 03:08 PM in Abortion, China, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3)
"Peter" has some thoughts on our lack of cyber security.
CYBER SECURITY SHOULD DICTATE NETWORK DESIGN
Stand-alone systems should be utilized wherever possible.
The recent hacking of government systems resulting in the loss of top secret files to China - once again - requires that I again address the abysmal record of federal agencies in "protecting" their files and data. This time China managed to steal, among the vast load of data, the personnel files of Intelligence Agency operatives including home addresses, relatives, medical histories, assignments and pay - to name just a few.
Once again I raise the question: Why do we have our deepest secrets and most critical military data systems connected to the Internet?
How did government communicate electronically before the Internet?
Does anyone remember the ARPANET? The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was one of the world's first operational packet switching networks, the first network to implement TCP/IP, and was the predecessor of what was to become the global Internet. It was built in 1969 to connect the various Defense agencies and contractors involved in developing systems of all types. Eventually many universities involved in similar research were also connected to ARPANET. There was NO public access.
Users of ARPANET were hard-wired into the network because much of the content on the network was classified. Eventually they were able to safely transmit most forms of documents and graphics and communicate by what we now call email. Because the ARPANET was a stand-alone network not connected to any other unsecured network, it was secure from hacking or sabotage from outsiders. The only way to "hack" it was to be on the inside and physically steal the data.
Why don’t we still have stand-alone government networks not connected to the Internet? The work could still be done securely and without hackers from other countries stealing our data and sabotaging our networks. Contractors would adopt whatever practices the government chose to use in order to get the contracts. Why do government workers need the Internet? What can they do on the Internet that they couldn’t do on a secure, stand-alone network?
Why on Earth would anyone, politician or not, want our most secret files available to hackers on the Internet?
Why is accessing "social media" worth risking our national security?
An Inspector General’s report awhile back shed some light on the subject. They inspected the workstations of several hundred government employees and found that their government computers were frequently used to view and even download pornographic images and videos. They were used to look up or update FaceBook accounts. They were used to send out personal messages on Twitter and other similar services. In other words, the Internet access was for the personal convenience of the employees, to the detriment of the government (and taxpayers).
Why do our leaders in the Defense Department, the Military, the IRS, FBI, Homeland Security, the Congress, etc. allow this compromise of national security, efficiency and effectiveness? Any network that has a connection to another network with Internet access is at risk of hacking and sabotage. Why would the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, Pentagon, or any agency that needs confidentiality want to expose their networks to other networks with Internet access? Because they want Internet access for themselves and they’re willing to put their country at risk to get it. It’s NOT a necessity, only a convenience, especially if you want to spend a lot of time watching or downloading porno.
It’s time that the leaders of government, including the President, man up and admit that their laziness and lust is costing the rest of us dearly. Will Congress EVER pass legislation denying Internet access for all government systems, except where Internet access is actually required to do the job?
"Legion" has some thoughts on Obama's priorities.
Posted at 10:25 PM in Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Economy, Education, Employment, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3)
"Ernie" has some thoughts on our air war against ISIS.
"Legion" has some thoughts on America's ISIS.