United States

All posts tagged United States

A Feminist Case Against Gay Marriage

Published February 10, 2012 by blacknright
Rainbow flag. Symbol of gay pride.

Image via Wikipedia

Though I do not purport to be a feminist, in fact, I abhor the very idea, that doesn’t mean that I am incapable of seeing something from the other person’s perspective. Somehow the gay movement has gotten itself aligned with the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Rights movement to the detriment of both. While most feminists are devoutly pro-gay, that doesn’t mean that all feminists are. Since the pro-gay feminists have their voice already in the fray, I will be playing Devil‘s Advocate for feminists who oppose gay marriage.

A feminist worth their salt would reject gay marriage as an assault on women. I can see the people rolling in the aisles already, such an assertion is lunancy. However, the proponents of gay marriage want marriage to be a “basic human right.” By making it a right,  you are disregarding a very important aspect of marriage-the ability to reject a marriage partner based on your own free will. A right cannot be rejected simply because you don’t want to adhere to it. For instance, I cannot be denied the right to vote based on my skin color, no matter what you may or may not think of my skin color. My right to vote is not conditional on your opinion of me. However, you do have the “right” to not to marry me based on my skin color, or my weight or that you simply do not like me. Those are valid reasons not to marry me. Whether or not they are discriminatory is irrelevant, marriage is the joining of two people (male and female)  who have made a commitment to one another of their own free will to be wed and to raise a family. To force someone to marry another person is indeed a form of slavery.

Marriage DayNext, if marriage does become a right. It will be a right for men,not women. Historically, whenever marriages have been perceived as a right, it was the men who were able to choose their bride and the women pretty much had to go along for the ride. Women’s rights will be greatly affected should marriage become a right once more. Poor women would be forced into marriage in order to gain some financial security. Even wealthy women would be told whom to marry as marriage once again became nothing more than a contract between two wealthy families. Any control over her life would be lost. She would once again become the property of her father, her husband or some other significant male but not herself.

Third, marriage is already an equal partnership and puts women on par with men. Since a man can only marry a woman, she becomes essential to the institution of marriage. Should gay marriage take hold, she would lose the one area of equal status she has always had-that of being a wife. Wives have always had a higher degree of societal status and a larger degree of respect. With the onslaught of women leaving the home and going into the workforce wives have lost that automatic rise in status. Now what a woman does job-wise is how she achieves any sort recognition within society. Which is fine if you are a CEO of Ebay or run some Fortune 500 company but the maid at the Hilton is not significant at all, not even as a wife and/or mother. We have completely undervalued women and torn them from their most important role-that of wife and mother.

Lastly, there are more gay men[about 2.4% of the population] then

English: This protester was on his own and let...

there are lesbians [about 1.2% of the population]. That means gay men will receive far more of the benefits of marriage then women. It also says once and for all that women are irrelevant and have no place inside marriage! It will make the marriage about sex and not procreation and raising children. By defining marriage in such a putrid fashion, we lower our standards and women will once again become sex objects. Vessels of lust and nothing more. By degrading the mother of the species we will be putting our children in danger. For we will undervalue anything that comes from the female-most importantly children. Children have already been cast as the enemy of the women through the pro-abortion movement. We have already turned men against women and tried to completely dismantle the human family. And we see the moral depravity that has resulted from our social engineering.

In closing, even though women will be the ones most adversely affected by gay marriage, their voices are not being heard. It is not about equality because marriage as it currently is known is the most egalitarian institution we have. To tear that asunder would do a disservice to all women and children. If two men want commit sodomy let them do so without the approval of the state. No one is stopping them but marriage needs to be maintained for a healthy society to continue to function. Any feminist should be angry that 2.4 percent of men are being favored over 98.8 percent of women! Is this a fair exchange…is this justice…is this equality? I think not!

Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

Published October 29, 2011 by blacknright
Manhattan Tea Party

Image by ajagendorf25 via Flickr

Anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time knows that I am a Tea Party girl. However, one cannot ignore this Occupy Wall Street movement that is the Left’s equivalent of the Tea Party. When the Tea Party first started growing the Left tried their inane beverage parties as if the people joining the movement were all enamored and obsessed with tea or something. You had the Coffee Party, there was a Beer Party and I am sure if  you looked hard enough you could’ve found a Diet Fanta party for anorexic Hispanics or some other such nonsense. 
         With the failure of those parties, they finally hit upon an idea-re-create Woodstock with its sex, drugs and non-existent bathing and boom the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement was born. OWS is basically Woodstock on speed. There is a vast difference between the two movements and it can best be summed up in this “photo” I recieved in my email:

 There is a reason the two parties cannot get along besides the whole  rape thing. The reason is because the two movements fundamentally disagree on how this country should be. The tea party thinks people should be responsible for creating and carrying out their own destiny. While the OWS group thinks government should be involved every time you take a breath.  While the government does a role in the lives of its citizens it is not supposed to be a nanny. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens and provide infrastructure to society in order that its citizens can then live their lives according to their own beliefs and ideals. So long as those ideals don’t cause undue harm to others.

The only thing these two movements have in common are that they are both grassroots based. Beyond that, the movements are like night and day. The Tea Party wants to reign in the government and hold them accountable for their actions. The OWS blames Wall Street for the woes the nation is facing while they are carrying around laptops,  IPODs and wearing FUBU. It is pretty clear they have no understanding of what they are fighting, whereas the Tea Party is very clear in what it wants to see take place. Ask anyone at a Tea Party about the Constitution and they will most likely whip out their own little pocket copy. People at a Tea Party have an understanding of what the Constitution and why it should be followed. The OWS crowd seems far less educated about their own cause. Which only makes them look foolish.

What is worse is the government is actually behind this movement. You have both Obama and Nancy Pelosi encouraging and supporting the protesters. Rule number one of a protest: Never have the government back your cause! No protester worth their salt would ever have the government endorse them! I know you OWS people dropped a lot of acid during Woodstock but even with your limited brain cells left you must at least remember that from your protest days!

In closing, all I can say is if it comes down to a showdown between the Tea Party and the OWS crowd  you better hope and pray the Tea Party wins or else you won’t have a country, job or freedom left.

A Mormon Presidency

Published October 16, 2011 by blacknright
Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Image via Wikipedia

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Harry Reid-what do these men have in common, they are all Mormons. However, in my opinion, they do not represent Mormons nor the American people very well, (with the exception of John Huntsman just because I don’t know his views very well) instead they seem more concerned with appeasing the Left instead of doing what is Right. To be fair, people have a right to know how one’s religion will impact the decisions a politician makes. I know I would not go out endorsing a candidate who professed to be a Satanist because those beliefs are incompatible with my notions of liberty and responsibility. [Satanists focus solely on  “freedom” and have little use for responsibility or helping those in need.] So what would a Mormon presidency (by a real Mormon and not one who sets aside their beliefs when convenient.) look like?

1. We are all about “restoring” things. We also have a profound respect for the Constitution of the United States and so would work on restoring the Constitutional republic of this land. Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve, in February of 1992 wrote about the
“Divinely Inspired Constitution.”

The success of the [Constitutional] convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:

“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.”4 Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.).

By the same token, we are not blinded by such devotion that we see the Constitution as a perfect document in need of no change whatsoever as illustrated by this quote by Reuben J. Clark, “who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,”6 also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”7Even when changes are clearly needed as they were in the days of slavery and Jim Crow laws one does not need to change the totality of the document or the central message of the Constitution to do so. These things can remain affixed and should be considered the starting point of which to derive more just laws.
By having a Mormon in the White House, you would have someone with a great love for the U.S. Constitution and would not seek out to destroy it. People’s liberties would be far more protected with a Mormon in the office than they have been with our current Muslim president. There would be no stomping over the rights of the people by executive order with a Mormon in office.

 2. Families would be made a priority. An important part of the Plan of Salvation involves the creation and the maintaining of families, laws that hinder that would not be allowed to stand. As we have seen through Proposition 8, Mormons are willing to stand up for traditional marriage publicly as well as privately. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” by Gordon B. Hinckley had this to say about the importance of family, especially both mothers and fathers:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

It is because families are eternal that we value them above all else except God. We spend our time in temples connecting family members one to another. We seek out the past with full knowledge that our salvation is very much dependent on the salvation of our ancestors. Like the Marines, we leave no man behind. With a Mormon in the office of the President, you would see the uplifting of families not the tearing down.

3. Charity. While most people associate charity with the giving of money to the poor and/or needy, ask any Mormon and they will tell you that true charity is the pure love of Christ. We believe we are to be charitable to others in order to exemplify that pure love of Christ that was freely given to all when he was on Earth. As a member of the church, we are called to be charitable and we give not only to the Church’s humanitarian aid but to other charities as well. However, anyone can give money. What is more important is giving time. If you were in the hospital and someone sent you some money while you were in there-would that do you any good? Probably not, you are confined to a hospital bed what are you going to do with money? However, if someone came in to visit you, talked to you, helped you eat if you were unable to do it yourself, wouldn’t that be far more charitable? When you left the hospital what would you remember the money you received or the visit? When people equate charity with money it totally undermines and undervalues the true meaning of charity. With a Mormon in the presidency there would be more of a focus on charity, helping those in need in order so they can become self-reliant. The Economist wrote an article dealing the LDS Welfare system, here is the link for the article, http://www.economist.com/node/988818

It concludes by saying: The Mormon welfare system shows how comprehensive church-run social services can be. Unfortunately, it does not support Mr Bush’s belief that federal tax breaks will unleash a wave of such projects. When the president announced his programme, the church authorities were polite, wished him well—and said they wanted nothing to do with it. The system runs because Mormons give up time and money. Tax breaks will make no difference to that—but they may, the church fears, enmesh the welfare system in a tangle of government restrictions.

A Mormon president would revamp the welfare system in this country and would help people become more self-reliant. A Mormon president would understand it would take more than money to solve problems  especially when it comes to those who find themselves in some serious dire straits. The mission of the LDS church is four-fold

1) Perfect the Saints 2) Redeem the Dead 3) Proclaim the Gospel and 4) Help the poor and needy. Because this is seen as our mission, a Mormon president would not shirk from it and would help devise a welfare plan in such a way that it would actually benefit those who needed it and not continue to enable their dependency.

These are just a few of the things that would take place in a Mormon presidency and from what I can see this country would be better off under a Mormon president than it has been under any other for a long while now. The only “Mormon Question” I see is, “Why wouldn’t you have a Mormon president?” And while I truly do wish to have a Mormon president, I do not believe Mitt Romney is that candidate. Personally, I think Dena Leichnitz would be a much better pick. LOL

South Central Tea Party Organizes

Published August 1, 2011 by blacknright
Soldier around Nablus April 2006

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday I went to the South Central Tea Party. I had a good time and for once no one said, “It is good to see a Black person here.” Not that I mind all that much, but it was great just to be one of the bunch. Gathered around were people who were concerned about their country and the color of their skin did not play into it.

We were out there to protest the lies of the NAACP, who was busy holding a conference at the Convention Center.  Jesse L. Peterson who is the founder and director of BOND was the primary organizer of this event. An event that was a long time in coming. Did we make a dent in armor of the NAACP? Probably not, but then again nothing worth fighting for is ever easy.

This past Sunday was just the beginning. It was to let the NAACP know that they can’t depend on support of every Black person because if anyone is racist, it is the NAACP. Any other organization that would advocate for the death of millions of Blacks would be brought up on blatant discrimination charges yet the NAACP is able to get away with it? Why is that? Abortion is the biggest killer of Blacks and yet the NAACP has sided with those who seek to destroy us.

Anyone who would side with people who want to destroy the poor and Blacks which oftentimes are the same thing are nothing more than thugs. What South Central Tea Party gets that other Tea Parties don’t is that this cannot just be about how the government spends money. That how it spends money, is a root of something much deeper. That if you don’t fix the moral compass of a nation, nothing else is going to matter.

Abortion was not only brought up at this Tea Party, it was specifically addressed as one of the issues deeply affecting the Black population. That is something that is seldom addressed at other Tea Parties and while I understand you don’t want to get bogged down with too many issues, the issues of life and death and our government actively promoting death should be a topic to be addressed within the Tea Party framework.

While we may not have made a dent to Ben Jealous and his organization, we might have at least raised some awareness of what the NAACP believes and what the average Black person believes and that can only benefit the dialogue between the two.

New York Passes Gay Marriage Legislation

Published June 25, 2011 by blacknright
Rainbow American flag promoting equality for e...

Image via Wikipedia

There are at least 29 sane people in New York who sit on the legislature. In a vote of 32-29, the New York legislature voted to legalize gay marriage. I would not be exactly dancing in the streets if I was a gay activist as they have taken to doing. This is not a ringing endorsement of gay marriage by a long shot. If anything it should be more discouraging to the winning side that after all this time, they are still barely getting enough votes to pass their agenda.

In fact, in a state as overwhelmingly liberal as New York to have 29 people say no to gay marriage is rather shocking. Trust me, if it was reversed and the legislature had voted it down while I would be happy it didn’t pass, I would be highly concerned that the margin for its failure was so slim.

This is nothing new for the gay marriage camp though, because they know they cannot let the people decide if they want gay marriage in their state or not. Whenever they have, they have lost. In fact, On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8 by a margin of almost 600,000 votes. It took a renegade judge, Vaughn Walker,  with his own agenda to undo the will of the people.

History has shown while the people are not always right, the government is more frequently wrong and on the important issues of the day, especially the Court. The Court gave us Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Plessy vs. Fergueson. Taney, who was the Supreme Court justice on the Dred Scott Case is quoted as saying:

 It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

 Therefore do not give me the dog and pony show about the “sanctity of our courts” and the “nobleness” of those who sit on the bench. They were wrong in 1857 when Dred Scott was decided, they were wrong in 2009 when they overturned Prop 8 and the legislators were wrong in New York. And for those of who think the gay activists are not trying to destroy marriage but just broaden the concept, there is this gem:

But once the judiciary or legislature adopts “the union of any two persons” as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman. Therefore, legally sanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexisting with the contemporary man-woman marriage institution, actually displaces and replaces it. [Marriage Facts. Monte Neil Stewart]

 What this really is about is the complete dismantling of marriage and the traditional nuclear family in order to make petulant adults feel good about their own dysfunctional lives. God help us all.

 

Tea vs. Kool Aid: My Response to Nathan Gawronsky at SMC

Published April 19, 2011 by blacknright
1901 portrait of Alice Paul, cofounder of the ...

Image via Wikipedia-Alice Paul

Nathan Gawronsky is a writer for the Corsair at Santa Monica College. I attended the Associated Students (AS) meeting yesterday and was given a brief tour by their AS President, Tiffany Ibuyani along with my ASO Presidents Shawn Adamski and Jaden Ledkins. I was impressed with the wealth of the community college but not with much else. LACC definitely has more heart. However, I digress, as I read this fluff piece in their Corsair newspaper I had to answer it back.  The piece is entitled “Tea Party and GOP are mad as hatters.”

The following is what makes us “mad.” (Of course, I am mad, mad that people like these seem willing to sell my rights, my country and children for the criminal element of our population!)

 The idealized America that Tea Party followers dream of is a place where gays live exclusively in Los Angeles (Sodom) and New York (Gomorrah), corporations pay record low taxes, women never get abortions, prisons grow bigger, and Muslims and illegal aliens can take a hike.

My response:

The liberal ideology is so much based on the acceptance of debauchery and criminality that if it wasn’t so highly lethal, it would be almost funny. Let’s take each piece that you think adds to society starting with homosexuality. Liberals are the same people who will condemn a person for smoking because it shortens their life and pollutes the environment yet have no problem with homosexuality which a Canadian study found shortened the lives of those affected by it from 8-20 years. Smoking only takes 13 years off your life. If you want to read the study for yourself go to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9222793?dopt=Abstract

 In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

So why would I promote something that is potentially lethal to so many people? Just like I don’t advocate smoking, alcoholism or drug use, I don’t promote homosexuality either. It does not make me a bigot, though that is a easy comeback for the liberal Left. It makes a concerned citizen who does not wish to see a life get snuffed out by homosexual practices.

Let’s go with the next one, corporations pay record low taxes. Unless you are a sadist, no one wants to pay taxes, everyone wants to pay the lowest possible tax and what is wrong with that? The less corporations have to pay in taxes, the more likely they are stay in the United States to do business. The more they stay here instead of going oversea, the more likely Americans will have jobs. The more Americans that have jobs, the less we have to spend on welfare and other social programs. The less we have to spend on social programs, the more money can be used for education and other necessary institutions. Everybody wins!

Onto the next one, women never get abortions! Liberal men have to be the most cowardly of the male species because they are the ones who advocate abandoning women and children to abortion so they can continue their wanton ways of seducing every woman who comes along. Abortion is not about the rights of women, in fact, Alice Paul-the author of the Equal Rights Amendments, said abortion was the ultimate exploitation of women. The original suffragettes were all anti-abortion. Abortion has always been about men trying to pit women against her children. In fact, Bernard Nathanson, who is now pro-life but originally got NARAL started is the one who convinced Betty Friedan to make abortion a “woman’s issue” because it never was before. Up to 60 percent of women are forced or coerced into abortion. Women have been killed for NOT choosing abortion.  Women like Deena Moody who was killed by her abortionist boyfriend, Alfred E. Smith, for refusing to abort. A world where women never get abortion would be a world where women and children are safe and protected from pro-abortion predators. A women where women never get abortions means a world where all children are free to be born and lead the lives they were destined to live without interference from pro-choicers. It would be a beautiful world filled with laughter of children instead of 50 million dead!

Now, let’s talk about prisons. Is it a tragedy when you have someone who hasn’t committed a crime imprisoned? Yes, I know of such tragedies. That being said, I have also been greater traumatized because someone who should’ve been locked up wasn’t! The drunk driver who killed my father had a past history of drinking and driving and was allowed to keep driving and kill my father. So I don’t want to hear about the rights of criminals. I care more about the rights of victims. If you want to help those who have been wrongly accused and imprisoned unjustly then go to Voice of the Martyrs where people in other countries are imprisoned for professing Christ. Or does the point that they are Christians make you more antagonistic to their plight? I didn’t cry when Ted Bundy got fried. I didn’t cry when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed either. These men had caused untold damage and deserved the penalty they got. Their victims get my tears, not the murderers.

The last point-Muslims and illegal aliens can take a hike.

Most definitely!!! I don’t want to hear that all Muslims are not terrorists that is a false argument. All Muslims don’t need to be terrorists, not when you have a big enough faction of them that are. All Germans didn’t kill 5 million Jews  during World War II, it just took a big enough faction to accomplish it though. All White people weren’t slave owners pre-Civil War but there were enough of them to keep slavery intact until it was abolished. The fact that not every Muslim is out to get us, doesn’t mean we ignore the ones who are!

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Then we have the U.S.S Cole which was also bombed by Al Qaeda.

The USS Cole Bombing, or the USS Cole Incident, was a suicide attack against the United StatesNavydestroyerUSS Cole (DDG 67) on October 12, 2000 while it was harbored and refueling in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured. This event was the deadliest attack against a United States Naval vessel since 1987

Of course, 9/11 is pretty obvious and then we have Nick Berg who was beheaded on the internet, need I go on. Until we stop being attacked and until the Muslims revolt against this tyranny don’t ask to close my eyes to those who are trying to kill me and my people!

Lastly, really do I have to defend LEGAL immigration!? I don’t welcome criminals into my country. Come to my country correctly or don’t come at all! Respect my land or go home! If you can’t understand why I am against ILLEGAL immigration then I would say the mad hatter is actually you, not the ones who want the rules of their country to be respected! I don’t have time to continue, have to get back to studying and not breaking the law! What a tough day I have in store!

 Dena Leichnitz                                                                                      Los Angeles City College
ASO, Senator of Disabled Student Affairs
proud Tea Party member

Is Trump the New Palin?

Published April 16, 2011 by blacknright
Bumper stickers on the tailgate of a Maryland ...

Image via Wikipedia

Donald Trump has been all over the news as of late making his bid for the presidency. His criticism of Obama has been received with glowing accolades from the Right. However, is the Right just so desperate for anyone to pick up the mantle of their cause that even Donald Trump would suffice?

Trump has even joined the “birther” bandwagon, wanting to know where Obama’s birth certificate is. Of course, this all seems a little Johnny come lately considering that the Right has taken severe blows for even asking this question for the past two years.Orly Taitz, most of all, has been made out to be some deranged psychopath whose only interest is taking down the United States government. So why is it now suddenly not the height of treason to demand the President actually follow the Constitution in terms of proving his eligibility.

Like Palin before, everyone  on the Left is sort of writing off Trump as some kind of quack. However, what the Left has yet to learn from their row with Palin is that Right is not so quick to cast people aside because they don’t fit into their notion of what a politician should be. If anything the fact that Trump is NOT a career politician might actually work in his favor.

Palin struck a chord with the American conservative public because they saw their own lives in her. She had respect for the conservative values and did not talk about conceding their values in the name of bipartisanship. (Of course, we all know bipartisanship only works in one direction, the conservatives must always be bipartisan, the Left never does!)

The glow seems to be fading somewhat from Palin but could it be restored with Trump’s emergence into the political arena. Will they team up together and run as a ticket? Or will Trump overtake Palin as the next supposed conservative icon? With Planned Parenthood on the ropes, despite its temporary reprieve in the Senate by cowardly Republicans who wouldn’t know a winning situation if it spit in their face, and with more backlash against liberalism everyday and with the Tea Party emerging as viable third party we are seeing the demise of liberalism. However, who will be able to take the conservative momentum and parlay it into a doable agenda and help restore our republic?

Trump? Palin? As much respect as I have for Palin and as much as I generally admire Trump’s rise to power, I don’t think either of them have what it takes to make this country great again. Who does? Only time will tell. Let’s just hope whoever it is remembers that the American people are their employers not  the DNC or the RNC. God bless America.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 223 other followers