Why Should Iowa Decide...Again?

In the aftermath of the last Presidential election, "some" GOP hopefuls are sniffing around Iowa and New Hampshire. I for one am very tired of this drill. So the question is again, why should Iowa or New Hampshire decide who the nominee should be this time around? By the time the decision gets to the big States (i.e. Texas, or even crazy California), the decision is already made.

I can't stand the thought of another squishy neo-con who campaigns like George Wallace, but votes like George McGovern when he or she gets to Washington. If Micheal Steele is serious about listening to the Tea Party movement, then we need to start thinking about how we are going to keep independents and Democrats from deciding who the nominee is going to be. I'm talking about the foolishness of open primaries. The next primary, every Obama voter is going to vote in GOP primaries to nominate the most repugnant candidate (to Conservatives) in the field. We need a conservative populist, and one not too eager to reach across the aisle to sell out the people who worked so hard to put them in office.

Mitt Romney is an undependable conservative and certainly no populist. Tim Pawlenty is not a populist, and mostly a moderate. Ronald Reagan was a conservative and populist. Mike Huckabee is a conservative and populist. Sarah Palin is a conservative and populist. If we are going to win in 2012, we will need a populist. More importantly, we need a principled conservative.. Iowa should not decide. New Hamphire should not decide. Open primaries need to be closed to Republican voters. Why does the GOP establishment hate conservative populists? Who knows, but when they select big Government moderates like John McCain, they sink like a battleship.

Homosexuality, Iowa, and the March of Altruism

Homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder. Some have looked into the background of homosexual males, and have found some commonality. Three things stand out: 1. Raised in a family with a passive or submissive father, 2. A dominate mother, 3. A child with a high degree of sensitivity (defined as strong reaction to outside stimuli, positive or negative). Some children are much more sensitive than others and it’s an unexplained personality trait in individual children, although I’m sure there are various theories. These three things, coupled together, set the stage or potential for homosexuality to take root. No one yet knows why males coming from these circumstances tend to display such proclivity for same sex attraction. It could be a coping mechanism to reduce anxiety, as asserting dominance in a typical male role can often create conflict and tension that sensitive males find frightening and uncomfortable. Perhaps retreating into a ‘Gay’ identity provides some refuge or relief from these anxieties, and why those so afflicted cling so desperately to this identity. I should caveat that due to social pressure, sometimes homosexual males camouflage their behavior in public to avoid scorn. Some are more comfortable, and outwardly express their identities in manner of speech, dress, and general demeanor. I don’t hold the belief that sexual preference is necessarily innate, as many kinds of experiences, circumstances, and socialization can impact ones application of ‘self’ as a sexual being. Yes, nature certainly plays a roll in sexual proclivity as well, but external stimuli all weigh-in to potentially alter nature’s call. The intelligent human being has the ability to restrain or act out sexual behavior in any way they choose. Yes, we all have proclivities. Everyone does. Compulsions can be very strong, some say irresistible, and need to be addressed with treatment…as some are very destructive. Of course, these three conditions discussed above do not account for all cases of homosexual behavior, but I am simply stating that many male homosexuals have many or most of these factors in their respective backgrounds.

These personality traits, generally develop between the ages of 2 and 5. This is the reason it’s so difficult to treat, because these coping mechanisms have been reinforced over a lifetime. There have been some reparative therapies that have been successful for passive homosexuals. The starting point of homosexual reparative therapy is the realization of a problem. An alcoholic or addict will not stop drinking or using until they recognize there is a problem. Most doctors, taking a political position these days, are now unwilling to call homosexuality a disorder. There are few places for these people to go other than to believe this Gay identity is what their stuck with. This has hyper-politicized the issue further, and why the natural progression of this is to create (from thin air) an issue of civil rights…for what would be otherwise be a recognized sexual proclivity disorder (not a race, gender, creed, or religion issue).

There rests the dilemma…that we are told that we have no choice but to accept that homosexual behaviors are normal… regardless of the fact that our own biology screams that it is not. Homosexual sex is an unhealthy practice and lifestyle. Homosexual men especially, have a life expectancy of males in third world societies. It is a high risk sexual behavior that can have deadly consequences. Saying this is normal or good is not my definition of compassion, if thats what this bonehead judge in Iowa thought he was demonstrating.

Younger people, who are otherwise normal adolescents, unfortunately, have been encouraged to experiment by many voices in society they trust (friends, teachers, celebrities, politicians, etc). However, this sexual experimentation has lead to homosexual techniques practiced in the heterosexual community, between men and women, which are equally unhealthy. We are seeing manifestations of this experimentation causing a wider diversification of sexual practices and perversions in all communities… that are not conducive to a healthy society…either physically or mentally.

I have also read postings by homosexual apologists that the growing divorce rate is an indication that marriage is no longer a viable institution in our society (and that's a defense of homosexual marriage...I don't get it). That view has as much cynicism attached to it as pouring pollution into a river, then saying the water is no longer fit to drink. The failure of marriage is symptomatic of this growing sexual immorality that is rapidly spreading throughout the country. If we, as a nation, do not uphold marriage as the ideal institution for the preservation of the next generation, then I fear what America will look like in the next 100 years. Children, with two parents of the opposite sex, born into the security of a nurturing loving home, taught Judeo-Christian moral values to keep them healthy and viable, are the best option for a strong Nation.

Others disagree. Liberals, and even some well meaning people believe supporting the Gay agenda is compassionate, but by doing so unwittingly plant the seeds of their society’s destruction. Once the currency of their Christian heritage is lost forever, and it’s replaced with secular altruism, it’s finished....done. History is replete with the cruelty and destruction caused by man’s faith in his own goodness (Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Amin, Chavez, and Liberal Federal Judges), all worshiping in their church of altruism. The only boundaries they have are in their own judgments, and their own moral sense of right and wrong. There is no higher authority in the Church of Altruism…I’m it…its ME…I’m the King. So much for the American experiment.

We Americans need to think more about Unalienable Rights, and what that means. Our Creator endowed to us (as Stated in the Declaration of Independence), Unalienable Rights, that no Dictator, King, State, or Principality can abridge or remove. I wish someone would tell this to the altruistic judges of the Federal Court, who believes both the Ten Commandments and the Constitution, are subject to any modification using any strain of tortured logic to interpret and create new rights without a legislative process. Why not do away with legislature and executive branch, the Constitution...lets just do away with elections and representative government entirely...and let the judge decide...everything. That won't send us to hell, but we'll get there faster.