Terrorism has become the Moslem method of war. Not every
Moslem is a terrorist. But most
terrorists are Moslems. And there are a
whole lot of Moslems in the world.
They have over a billion people and could fight real wars
but their nature is to sneak around and blow people up. It is a cowardly tactic. Only a nerd who is self-involved and wants to
uglify the world would blow up strangers and himself. He is not cool. He is a dork.
Terrorists think that they are trendy with their guns and
their suicide vests. They don’t look so
cool when their corpses are covered in the detached hands of children and the
blood of grandmothers.
I suppose terrorism is necessary for Moslems because they
are not very civilizationally advanced and have not really invented real
weapons for war even though they have borrowed some from the west. And the
United States, in its global bribery, gifts them some.
What happened to the gladiatorial games when men would fight
men to the death? What happened to the
English military walking in lockstep without even bothering to duck the bullets
of the American guerrilla forces? How
was bravery replaced by stealth?
Why do terrorists skulk around in the alleys of our
lives? Why do they take the fight out of
fight and sponsor assassinations and executions?
Obama (originally born a Moslem) has moved terrorism to the
sky. He has fielded an army of drones to
surprise his enemies. He kills with no
exposure. He has enhanced robotic murder.
A street fight is ugly.
It usually involves a sucker punch or maybe knifings. It does not have
the organizational structure of war.
I am not a terrorist.
I am not a street fighter.
I am a boxer. I fight
under the rules of the ring. Not even, I am retired.
I obeyed a referee when I fought. I was like an English
soldier, marching to brain damage, fighting with dignity, allowing my opponents
to share the rules of the ring, finding my lord in the old rules of the
Marquees of Queensberry.
I haven’t been a street fight since I am eighteen. I think they are low class. They never end up fair. I detest thugs
fighting without rules. It is like
terrorism and drone fighting. It is
mankind at his worst. It is suicidal,
brain-washed Moslems and President Obama trying to prove their manhood by
extreme acts of ugliness and inconsideration.
Of course, Obama is better than his Moslem, nerd
brothers. They kill helter-skelter. He targets his targets and kills neatly.
Terrorism is the nerdiness of unimaginative killers. They can’t blame themselves because they are
without souls and conscience. They don’t exist except in their blasts. Their destruction is their reverse corporality.
Its time our civilization returned to the dignity of structured battle between
soldiers and away from nerds honing their skills on video games and blowing
themselves and others around them up.
Is Federal gun control lawful? Truth reveals what is false.
historical record from our Founders’ writings explain the form, and
function of lawful Constitutional governance. Jefferson’s Kentucky
Resolutions, Resolved 1, explains, “That the several
States...delegated to that [Federal] government certain definite
powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right
to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general
government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative,
void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a
State...that the [Federal] government created by this compact was not
made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers
delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and
not the Constitution, the measure of its powers....”
3, “‘...the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people’...are withheld from the cognizance of the federal
tribunals.” Therefore, since the
Second Amendment is
not an expressly delegated power to the Federal Government, the power
should remain exclusively with the State. Even when the Incorporation
theory is applied to the Second Amendment, the words stay the same;
that is, “...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed,” keep their original defined meaning, and
purpose. Besides, there is no legislative, nor executive power
delegated through the words “due process” in the Fourteenth
Amendment, from which the Incorporation theory is said to come. For
the Federal Government to regulate and control guns, or any
non-delegated power, is unconstitutional, and an infringement.
8: “...where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a
NULLIFICATION of the act is the rightful remedy...” for the State.
though the States, and cities already have gun control, it should be
to support and defend the individual’s Right to keep and bear arms,
since it is an unalienable Right to protect life. That is why the
Second Amendment forbids infringement.
is no such thing as shared powers with the Federal Government.
Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (1790-1799) stressed the people’s
retained sovereignty, and that: “no
power can be exercised, but what is expressly given.”
“The Father of the Constitution” James Madison, in his Virginia
Resolution, calls it “criminal degeneracy” for the Federal
Government to exercise control over the States’ and people’s
“Bill of Rights.” Therefore, Federal Gun Control is unlawful.
In one classic science fiction plot, antagonists attempt to
gain control of the future by attempting to alter the past. Though it might not
be as exciting as a Dalorian speeding at 88 miles per hour, maniacal forces in
our own reality are attempting to accomplish nearly the same thing by
drastically reconceptualizing our understanding of history.
Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed
to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of
assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part,
traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.
In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel
are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his
shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a
sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these
stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark
of the covenant...These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel
This is not the only incident in Scripture where the
believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations.
In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient
No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and
even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the
left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems
commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our
perception of history in the attempt to shift the country's underlying values
and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part
being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their
precious heritage to the point of laying down one's life should circumstances
require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of
goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances
warrant. One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of
Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in
Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the
campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this
agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First
However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette
newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of
Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian
Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the
outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want
the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a "general symbol
In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of
questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross
by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to
kill people from other countries.
No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how
else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen
world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to
the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the
brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter
If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a
number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal
perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.
Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building
blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those
hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are
as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but,
to use Rev. Adams' words, "the symbol of the son of God dying
peacefully." History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of
the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.
Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus
at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by
the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have
transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of
hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good
Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as
accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an
overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.
By referencing a work as readily available as "The Case
For Christ" by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away
free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000
years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful
the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel
in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.
First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving
5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as
sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in
this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being
secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the
wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.
The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust
upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate.
With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains
in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely
continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a
second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper
into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted
with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as
the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.
Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming
agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its
unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than
So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true
Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in
regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the
cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons,
and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those
who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course
of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a
categorical universal imperative.
Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus
instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was
demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the
synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy,
Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed. Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His
captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the
ear of the high priest's servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, "Do
you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal
more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled
that say it must happen this way (NIV)?" Christ chastised a foremost
disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of
His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all
calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.
Though each of us are valued having been made in the image
of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge
if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public
record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon
those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won't likely be
given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do
everything moral within one's own power to preserve one's own life.
In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the
other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue
pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians.
However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and
certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.
The Gospels should not be construed as denying the
individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity
to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ
instructs, "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and
Scripture admonishes the believer to be as wise as a serpent
but as harmless as a dove. While the Christian is not to go around stirring up
undue trouble, neither is the Christian to enter unequipped into situations
that will result in overwhelming bodily harm or unnecessary physical death.
Just how literally do those raising the turning of the other
cheek to something on the level of the Prime Directive from Star Trek want to
take the remainder of the passage? In Matthew 5:41, the text reads, "And
whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." So will
those insisting upon the turning of the other cheek as an unmodifiable absolute
now teach their child that, instead of refusing to get into a car with a
stranger, that you as a parent will punish them severely if they don't comply
with every Sanduskite that slithers out of its sewer pile.
In his concluding paragraph, Rev. Adams declares that using
the cross to symbolize the military or to praise the military amounts to a
blasphemy equivalent to taking the Lord's name in vain. It seems that clergy
within the Disciples of Christ would only be interested in adhering to the
strictures of the divine scriptures when they think these teachings can be used
to tear down the pillars upon which this great country rests.
For example, a number within the Disciples of Christ are
also pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage.
So where is this denomination's outrage over violation of the commandments
prohibiting carnal relations between anyone other than a married man and woman?
This tendency to view the Bible and the traditional
teachings that are extrapolated from it as optional flow from the Disciples of
Christ positioning itself as a creedless church. Such a formalized belief is,
of course, a creed itself.
According to Wikipedia, there are those within the Disciples
of Christ that deny the Incarnation, the Trinity, and even the Atonement. So
what's the point of even bothering with any of the religious racket if Christ
as the only Begotten of the Father did not come to die for our sins? The cross in Bladensburg is not a representation of what the
military accomplished through force of arms. Instead, the cross commemorates
those from Prince George's County Maryland that died in the First World War. John 15:13 reads, "Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends (KJV)." Given the disdain he
has expressed for both those that take up arms in defense of the American
republic and traditional formulation of Christian doctrine, perhaps Rev. Adams
does not view the last full measure of devotion worthy of remembrance and
appreciation on the part of the COMMUNITY. It seems those like Rev. Adams only
extol this particular concept of social organization when it can be invoked as
justification to further curtail those areas of existence remaining under
personal purview or to confiscate additional percentages of your property. Yes, a cross is a distinctively Christian symbol. But this
particular cross under consideration goes beyond the implement upon which the
Savior suffered and died. At the base of each side of the memorial cross in
Bladensburg is embossed a virtue such as endurance, courage, devotion, and
valor. As well as representing those that died in Prince George's County during
this particular conflict, these virtues on each base of the cross remind that
it is not man that ranks these character traits among the desirable nobilities
to strive for but rather that these have been decreed to be so by God Himself.
To most in the West in general and the United States in
particular during the time of the First World War, deity or “the higher power”
to categorize the ultimate in a way the fewest possible could object to was
understood using Christian or Biblical formulations. So would those such as
Rev. Adams and his allies among the cultured despisers of the Almighty have us
remove all other historically accurate symbolizations of godhood as well? Along with the words “In God we trust.” on the back of our
currency, does Rev. Adams also intend to agitate to have the eye of Ra remove
from particular tenders as well? Does he also want to knock over the
blindfolded goddess of justice standing outside many of America’s courthouses?
For does she not also represent, in a less than ideally Christian manner we’ll
grant you, the idea that justice originates in a metaphysical realm above and
distinct from the state no matter what that social organization’s swords or
bullets might insist?
The memorial cross in Bladensburg is dedicated to a finite
number of individuals, namely those from Prince George's County that died in
World War I. Therefore, historians employed by the county could do something
useful for a change, rather than continually stirring the pot about the short
end of the stick Blacks have gotten in the past but have more than made up for
now, by researching if there are any county records extant as to the religious
affiliations of these honored veterans. If it turns out they were all
Christian, nothing should be done to the memorial cross; should it turn out
that a number were Jewish, instead of abolishing the park altogether, perhaps a
plaque could be erected acknowledging the contribution of the patriots of that
particular faith. The county certainly doesn’t seem to mind rubbing it in the
public’s nose regarding the accomplishments of other minorities. Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can
the righteous do?” The Founding Fathers were correct to warn of the danger of a
state so given over to the interests of religion that whether or not one was to
enjoy the basic entitlements and privileges of citizenship would be predicated
upon formalized membership in an established ecclesiastical organization.
However, that said, these thinkers also realized that any human undertaking
would be doomed to failure if such an enterprise went out of its way to slap
aside the outstretched hand of a beneficent deity.
by Shults Media Relations This contains some concepts that many folks haven't considered. We are not siding with or against the police or advancing excuses for them and we hope it does not appear we are picking on them either; we aren't.
this work, we interviewed 17 chiefs and sheriffs from around the
country. From those conversations (emails and phone) we have some quotes
in this work. We were asked not to source the particular quotes and
that is fair since this was not an on the record news interview, we just
wanted their thoughts and opinions. So, as Joe Friday said, "just the
it comes to various politicians and others speaking against gun
ownership (the 2nd Amendment and Constitution by definition) politicians
will many times cite city and state police chiefs who allegedly may
support the anti-gun movement. These politicians may have police chiefs
and their officers appear with them as props or spokesmen in news
conferences. So the logical question to ask is why are these top cops so
seemingly against firearm ownership?
Chiefs are at the beck and call of their political bosses,
mayors and city councils. "We chiefs get our opinion on firearm
ownership when it is issued to us."--A recent quote by a chief.
sheriff told us "There is an active debate between sheriffs and chiefs
that is affected by the big city chief culture because chiefs tend to
emulate each other."
For our purpose here let's just deal with city police, not state/national officials.
If city politicians are against gun ownership (Chicago, Washington D.C,
San Francisco, and New York for example) and the chief doesn't agree he
can (and probably will) be fired or demoted by the mayor or possibly by
a simple majority of the City Council. In most towns over 50,000
population chiefs generally get paid between $70,000 and $140,000 a year
plus benefits and retirement. Large city chiefs get well over $200,000
plus benefits, retirement and every once in a while you run into a chief
earning well over $300,000.00 plus benefits. They want to hang onto
that "chief" position, title and income.
This is why you see chiefs and their officers in the background
when privileged officials posture against citizen firearm ownership and
the Constitution by definition. Sure some chiefs may believe in citizen
gun control and may be willing as a backdrop for self-serving
politicians--especially if they were appointed by those in power at the
time. So whenever a mayor, senator, representative or president wants a
show of "top cops" showing support, a message is delivered to the
particular city where the top officials are anti-2nd Amendment
requesting top cops as props. The chiefs and officers are obediently
delivered for props or advised to get their resume updated.
Sheriffs are by and large a different breed. They are elected by the people with a larger proportional number of citizens than city officials. The
sheriff does not have to please a few city council members, a goofy
mayor (or a governor). Sheriffs represent the beliefs and values of the
majority of the area of his or her citizens who directly voted them into
office. Yes, there will be sheriffs who do not want guns in the hands
of citizens, but nothing like the number of police chiefs who have a
near immediate career ending gun held to their heads by
anti-Constitution politicians or the chief culture.
And most sheriffs take their Oath supporting the Constitution very seriously.
And while they currently follow and enforce Constitutional applicable
federal, state and county laws they reserve the power invested in their
oath and position as elected officers of their county to resist or not
to enforce Constitutional infringing law if or when that might
come. If that were to occur, the state police and/or federal government
may be ordered to step into that particular sheriff's county to enforce
those particular unconstitutional laws. The ramifications of those legal
incursions might be very interesting to watch, especially, we were
told, if that particular sheriff is actively supported by the citizens
of that county.
The bottom line is
city, state and even federal chiefs will almost always bend to the will
of their political masters--He who has the gold makes the rules." Then
this might be something to bring up in various press conferences with
officers in the background.
Feel free to use this as you wish--it is yours copy right free as a service of
Shults Media Relations, LLC
A PR firm that seriously supports the outdoor and firearms industry and our Constitution
Maybe Obama wasn’t a good swimmer as a kid. Somehow he has always had a knee-jerk
irrational hatred of waterboarding despite its effectiveness in getting
information from Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
I guess it’s too messy.
It’s like boxing instead of darts.
He’d rather keep his distance and kill people from up high through the
preemptive use of drones. Preemptive?
That’s right. He hated that about
Bush’s foreign policy.
Don’t give Obama or Holder any of that enhanced
interrogation. They had to go against it to denounce Bush. It was a political ploy. But who would have thought that they would
have left their butts hanging in the breeze by killing our own citizens from
the sky rather than inducing them to speak through a glass of water without
loss of limb or death.
Obama loves to kill by drone. It’s so neat; so clean; so
non-confrontational. Zap! It’s like
killing a bug. Obama has gone as far as
to say “Americans and others can be targeted if they are believed to be ‘senior
operational leaders’ of al-Qaida or ‘an associated force,’ even if there is no
evidence that they are engaged in an active plot to attack American interests.”
The Justice Department does its usual razzle-dazzle twisting
of language, “A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination.”
As a patriotic person I can’t argue with Obama’s use of
drones to kill our enemies and our traitors.
Contrary to Greek philosophy, I would rather kill one hundred innocent
Americans than to see Awlaki set free to hook up with a nuclear weapon and kill
Drone on Obama. But I
think that you should be impeached for lying like Clinton. He was not impeached
for his errant erection in the Oval Office.
It was his lies. Like your
presentations of yourself as an anti-torture humane human being when you are actually
a cowardly warmonger who kills people from robotic weapons in the sky.
Like your pretending it was a spontaneous demonstration in
Benghazi rather than an attack by al-Qaeda.
Hurrah for your Obama’s drone attacks but please resign from
office. We can’t afford another minute of you nor another trillion dollars.
On the heels of my recent
article on women in combat, in which I defend
traditionalism, it’s perhaps a good time to also take up the
cudgels for that bugaboo of women’s studies classes: the housewife.
Thus do I provide you with the quotation below from G.K. Chesterton’s
bookWhat’s Wrong with the World. He wrote:
Women were not kept
at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary, they were kept
at home in order to keep them broad. The world outside the home was
one mass of narrowness, a maze of cramped paths, a madhouse of
monomaniacs. It was only by partly limiting and protecting the woman
that she was enabled to play at five or six professions and so come
almost as near to God as the child when he plays at a hundred trades.
domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty
arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means
dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man
might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at
Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because
it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I
say, I give [the word] up; I do not know what the words mean. To be
Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets,
labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing
toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a
certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can
understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how
it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other
people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell
one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the
same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a
woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not
because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her
task; I will never pity her for its smallness.
As usual, Chesterton cut to the heart
of the matter with peerless profundity. I’ll thus add nothing to it
save to say that “housewife” isn’t actually a career but
something far greater: a calling. A career is the most narrow of
things, which is why careerism is a fault of the narrow-minded. It is
the altar at which worship people who look up and see only their own
Once again bullying politics is turning common sense
refutation into acceptance of a suspect cause.
The Boy Scouts is considering amending its policy against homosexual
participation of both members and leaders.
The bullying of liberal political correctness is again
sacrificing reason for convenience. Dare
I say this? I don’t know. Whenever I point out that the heterosexual
sex drive is as powerful as hunger and as essential to the species, the
liberals hold their ears and accuse me of being bigoted and Neanderthal.
Heavens, I don’t know what makes liberals so smart. Most of my critics are less educated and
sensitive than I am. Most of them don’t
have Ph.D.’s and have not been CEO’s.
They have errant mouths; lisps of inaccuracy.
The liberals just have the mob on their side. They have the
echo of their own pro-gay prejudice. They have faux-modernity behind their
Gov. Rick Perry has spoken out against gay membership in the
Boy Scouts. I am not against gay
membership. Just against gay leaders
which provides a risk to the scouts through their seniority and their authority. The homosexual sex drive is as strong as the heterosexual
sex drive and leaving gay leaders in charge of little boys is as stupid as
leaving a perverted sheep farmer alone with a sheep, lipstick and panties or a
stalker in a school for disabled girls.
Gays want to redefine the language. They don’t want to be accepted as
perverted. I don’t know why. Be what you are, not what you pretend to be. I
am manic depressive and a felon. Big
deal. I don’t want to be considered
Gays shouldn’t redefine English so that deviant sex is
suddenly beautiful. Maybe it is
beautiful to gays but not to heterosexuals.
I’m sure heterosexual sex isn’t so beautiful to gays. Take the seashells off of their eyes. See truth and it will set you free from hate
and jealousy. We hate each other because we lie. We don’t accept the truth because we are
afraid of it. We celebrate acceptance when
it is really only tolerance.
Gay troop leaders should quit trying to be scout leaders
when they know in their hearts and their loins that they present a risk.