|
 |
2009 Articles
|
 |
|
Sunday, March 29 2009
Demonstrating the commitment the far left has to elevating the level of civil discourse in our society, belligerent homosexual Congressman Barney Frank recently resorted to name-calling in an interview with the website 365gay.com. Answering a question about the Supreme Court potentially overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, Frank dismissed that possibility saying, "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court." How classy.
In Frank's warped worldview, anyone who opposes the spread of homosexuality in our culture is a homophobe. This offensive misuse of the term is more than irresponsible. It is ignorant and slanderous.
Homophobia is defined as a fear or hatred of homosexuals. To pejoratively label anyone who has moral objections to the practice of homosexuality a homophobe is such a blatant overreach that it effectively strips the term of any real meaning. There are homophobes in America today. But who they are just might surprise you.
To illustrate this, let me first begin by asking a question. When someone you care about picks up a loaded revolver to play a game of Russian Roulette, what is the loving response? To pat them on the back and say, "Well, this wouldn't be my cup of tea, but go for it.it's who you are!"? Or would it be to rip the gun out of their hand and tell them how dangerous, irresponsible, and deadly their behavior is? If you're struggling to answer this question, please stop reading and seek counseling.
Physically, the consequences of homosexuality are devastatingly apparent. According to the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death for homosexual men is between 40 and 43. The median age of death for heterosexuals is between 74 and 80. In 2003, the Center for Disease Control noted that homosexuals accounted for nearly 65% of all new HIV cases (keeping in mind that they make up only 2-3% of the entire population), and that cases of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A and B, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and virtually every other sexually transmitted disease disproportionately affected the homosexual community.
Psychologically, the effects of homosexuality on an individual are just as deplorable. According to the well respected Archives of General Psychiatry in 1999, "homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicid(e), major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence." Further, Dr. N.E. Whitehead from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals stated, "Studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse." And contrary to the misconceptions advanced by the homosexual lobby, these psychological problems are rarely associated with a stigma they endure from society.
Spiritually, an unrepentant practicing homosexual is engaging in an activity that is explicitly and unquestionably condemned by both the Old and New Testaments, and is completely irreconcilable with any Biblical understanding of Godly living.
In light of these realities, could someone explain to me how knowing these crippling physical, psychological, and spiritual consequences of the homosexual lifestyle and then encouraging a person to embrace it is loving? Urging another human being to engage in a risky behavior that will leave them dead at nearly half the age of the general population is an odd definition of love in my book.
The truth is that the people who love homosexuals are the ones who have the courage to face the bigotry and slander from hate-peddlers like Barney Frank and stand up for moral truth. They are the ones that face the mockery and derision of fools in an effort to take the Russian Roulette pistol from the hand of the homosexual.
So who is the homophobe, Barney? The gay rights lobby in this country works unceasingly to advertise and glamorize a deadly lifestyle. They celebrate behavior that tears families apart, wrecks homes, and sentences people to lifetimes of loneliness, confusion, disease, and heartache. And politicians like Barney Frank use their positions to make it easier for them to ensnare and attract hurting, confused people in need of love and help. Quite frankly, I can't think of anything more homophobic than that.
Peter W. Heck
Sunday, March 15 2009
The feud between Obama Democrats and Rush Limbaugh is getting old. It is now common knowledge that the Obama White House strategized to make the conservative talker ‘the face of the Republican Party,’ and then unleash a barrage of negative publicity towards him. George W. Bush had been the boogeyman upon which they built their rise to power, and Rush Limbaugh would be the boogeyman they would use to sustain it. Tasteful politics from the man who told us in his inaugural address that he had, “come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics…the time has come to set aside childish things.” Petty grievances, recriminations, childishness…Barack Obama knows what-of he speaks.
For his own part, Rush Limbaugh provided fodder for the left by asserting a desire to see President Obama fail. The faux outrage that has been manufactured by the left in response to this obvious desire is pathetic. The Obama administration and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) have pounced upon it as un-American, unpatriotic, and disloyal.
Liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller suggested to CNN’s Larry King that Rush should be executed for treason. And while not calling for his execution, MSNBC liberal host Rachel Maddow said to Jay Leno, “Actually rooting for the failure of your own federal government is pretty creepy.” Unfortunately Jay didn’t think to ask her why she was so creepy during the previous president’s two terms. And this, of course, reveals the hypocrisy behind the left’s silly protestations about Rush’s comment.
When President George W. Bush enacted wiretaps for terrorist surveillance, sought to “privatize” Social Security, and stayed the course in Iraq, the left wanted him to fail. A 2006 Opinion Dynamics poll reveals 51% of Democrats expressed a desire to see it happen.
But this reality is evidently lost on liberals seeking to capitalize politically on misrepresenting Rush and other conservatives’ perspectives. Take for instance the false choice proffered by the Today Show’s Matt Lauer when talking to RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Mr. Steele, there are as many Republicans out there as well as Democrats who are unemployed right now. People are hurting across this country. Republicans, as I mention, like Democrats are losing their homes, they're unable to send their kids to school. Do you think those Republicans want the policies of Barack Obama to fail right now?” Nice try, Matt.
Lauer’s bait is one being copycatted by liberals across the country. I’ve even been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of this false choice, having been challenged by a listener: “Do you hope Obama succeeds with his policies or do you hope the economy continues to get worse?” The underlying assumption is that Obama’s policies will actually help the economy improve, which they won’t. Therefore the correct answer is, “I hope Obama fails because if he succeeds, his policies will make our problems much worse.”
The Obama administration has proposed a carbon tax that will cause the price of gasoline and energy to skyrocket in this country. He doesn’t deny that, but justifies it because he believes in the global warming hoax and wants to force Americans off of carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, etc.). And what better way to accomplish this than make things that are carbon-based too expensive for Americans to purchase?
The dirty little secret is that we have no viable alternative to fossil fuels, and therefore once they become too expensive to purchase, our economy will be deprived of its lifeblood and will grind to a halt. If you drive a car, have a job, turn on a light switch, or eat, you are going to be negatively affected by this foolish policy. Not to mention that you will never have seen a quicker exodus of jobs to foreign countries then you will when businesses relocate to places like China and India that don’t and won’t have a carbon tax.
So let’s clear up any lingering confusion over this Obama failure issue. The President’s policies are driving the markets into the gutter, spending tax dollars (in a time of severe recession) to fund abortions overseas, and are preparing to obliterate the manufacturing base in the United States. They punish success, deprive us all of our economic freedom, and seek to remake this country in the model of a European welfare state.
I not only join with Rush Limbaugh in hoping President Obama fails in his revolution, I pray he will, and will use whatever voice I have to ensure he does. Any freedom-loving American would.
Peter W. Heck
Sunday, March 01 2009
I was recently privileged to attend the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. Though I knew this three day event would feature some of the country’s most respected conservatives, I was curious as to what the general climate would be, given the recent shellacking Republicans have taken at the polls.
From my estimation, this is a movement reborn.
There was a prevailing sense of liberation from eight years of having to defend an administration that was at times far from conservative. George W. Bush was a good man who did some conservative things as president, but from illegal immigration to Medicare to education, he continually pursued liberal, big government solutions.
Yet because he was a Republican, the public perception was that he was a conservative. And because he was certainly better than the alternative, conservatives rose up to defend him, even while cringing at his big spending tendencies.
Follow Bush with the quintessential anti-conservative (at least until recently), John McCain. For months, conservatives felt obligated to campaign for a man who had sought to thwart them at nearly every turn in his legislative career. It was such a stretch for many that without the addition of a true conservative in Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket, McCain’s margin of loss would have been staggering.
But if CPAC was any indication, those giant albatrosses have been lifted from the shoulders of a movement that is ready to start taking their message of freedom to the country: freedom from regulation, freedom from taxation, freedom from bloated government bureaucracy, freedom from social engineering, freedom from central economic planning. This is conservatism.
Barack Obama and the Democrats have now ordered nearly a trillion dollars in new government spending that we have no money to pay for. That means that we will “borrow” wealth from our children and grandchildren that has not yet been created, thus shackling them with insurmountable debt before they’ve even been born. Conservatives offer freedom for the people by giving them their money back, not taking more of it to spend on useless programs.
Barack Obama and the Democrats are floating bridge loans to corporations every other day. By doing so, these corporations become puppets controlled by the Democrats in Washington, whose message comes down: “You want this money, do things our way.” Conservatives offer freedom for these companies to control their own destinies, whether that’s prosperity or failure.
Barack Obama and the Democrats continue fighting in the name of pluralism to remove government recognition of religion from the public square. But our Founders understood religion was a necessity for a free republic because it teaches moral restraint. When morality disappears, government must grow and pass more laws to keep order. But when government grows and passes more laws, people lose freedom. Conservatives believe that government should recognize and embrace the Judeo-Christian principles of morality that preserve our ability to self govern.
Barack Obama and the Democrats seek radio broadcast restrictions on opinions they don’t like, thereby giving government power to regulate the airwaves and ration free speech. Conservatives believe people should be able to choose what they want to listen to, when they want to listen to it.
Barack Obama and the Democrats seek to enact the Card Check system, thereby removing the sacred right of a secret ballot election in the workplace. They do this to increase union rolls, and therefore Democrat party contributions as well. Conservatives believe that workers should have the freedom to join a union or not join a union absent an atmosphere of intimidation.
And the list goes on and on. Liberals have been undermining your freedom for decades, justifying it by their good intentions. As libertarian Randall Hoven documented, “seat belts, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, smoking bans, gun purchase and ownership restrictions, mandatory vaccines for your children, car emissions inspections, campaign ad and contribution restrictions, saying a prayer at a public school graduation or football game, trash separation and recycling, gas tax, telephone tax, income tax, FICA withholding,” all have come from the minds of liberals.
Conservatives think you are capable of governing yourself, provided you abide by natural moral law. Liberals think you need them to run your lives for you. Evidence of this sad reality is overwhelming.
A rejuvenated conservative movement seems ready to take this message to the country: Americans don’t need wizards in Washington to control this country…they need freedom. As Americans stand on the precipice of the largest government power grab in our history, chances are that will be a message that resonates.
Peter W. Heck
|
| |
