• Print
• Email

Surrendering Reality - How Gay Activism Won

Details

Created: Friday, 03 April 2015 11:32

Written by Ax D. WhiteMan

We are well on our way to codifying same sex relationships as superior to traditional Marriages.

Yes - Superior.

Gays demand not only to be equal, but to be held as a "protected class" based on their behavior.

The Supreme Court of the United States has become and open joke. The chances that they will act as Jurists applying law rather than social engineering master minds - is close to zero.

The question is: Where was this issue lost?

The objective truth and reality clearly fall on the side of the traditionalist. Yet the traditionalist finds himself overwhelmed by a tsunami of gay activism demanding not just equality - but heroic exaltation. Yes, if a professional male athlete publicly proclaims his practice of sexual gratification via another mans anus - he can expect a call from Barack Obama praising his heroic actions.

Objective reality suggests that having ones anus routinely penetrated by a male seeking to achieve orgasm - isn't the highest and best use of that orifice.

Yet, to suggest such a thing is now considered the height of bigotry. In liberal revisionist reality, a male anus, and a vagina are indistinguishable sexual organs - and don't you dare suggest otherwise. 

Even now, prior to anyone speaking in favor of "Religious Liberty," they must recite a preamble of sorts that declare "They are not opposed to Gays."

It is this writers belief that by ceding the fundamental argument of homosexuals - that is - that homosexual behavior is equal or preferred to heterosexual behavior - every succeeding argument is lost.  

Can we not state the obvious? 

-Society has a compelling interest in maintaining at least a replacement birth rate.

-Same sex relationships cannot produce offspring.

-Society has a compelling interest in promoting heterosexual relationships.

-Accordingly, society has a compelling interest in discouraging homosexual relationships.

Yes, despite the assertions of Federal Judiciary that it is only hatred and bigotry that deny those practicing same sex anal relations equal recognition under the law; there is actually sound basis in the morays and traditions of the past 6,000 years.

At the core of all major moral constructs, is the desire to propagate the species, and the recognition that we, as a species, have evolved to the point where our behavior is largely "learned" rather than "instinctive." That is, while we retain a primitive desire for sexual gratification, we don't have a "mating season" where instinct takes over and we engage in reproductive acts like deer, dogs, salmon, etc.  Rather, we are largely "taught" our sexual / reproductive practices.

(Side Bar - Yes, I know there are those that contend some men are "born" with the undeniable need to sexually gratify themselves via another mans anus. It's likely that such "born" characteristics exist. The existence of such in born traits are insignificant to the validity of the argument of creating public policy discouraging such behavior.)

For about 6,000 years, morality has taught human beings that sexual desires should be channeled toward productive acts. It is the same morality that discouraged masturbation. It was not that it was inherently evil or dangerous, simply that it was a misdirected application of sexual energy that could lead to no end - other than gratification itself. Similarly, it was taught that achieving sexual gratification via the orifices of people of the same sex could never produce off-spring and were likewise to be discouraged.

It may be argued that reproduction is not a desirable goal. Of course to do so would be to argue that extinction is desired - and perhaps by some it is.  But it cannot be argued that only heterosexual actions produce offspring, and there is a compelling reason to encourage that behavior. 

Accordingly, there is a compelling rationale behind public policy that discourages homosexual behavior. It is simply a fundamental objective reality that needs no apology. If the case for the objective truth - that public policy encouraging the fruitful coupling of the species is of benefit to society is clearly stated; then the basis for declining to participate in a homosexual coupling, or to sanction it as equal to a heterosexual coupling - is firmly grounded. 

Conversely; if one argues there is no objective difference between one male seeking sexual gratification via another male anus, and a male seeking gratification via a female; but adherence to an arcane religious moray dictates you act otherwise - ones argument is already lost.

As I'm afraid this one is

...at least for now.

 

Add a comment

Read more: Surrendering Reality - How Gay Activism Won

• Print
• Email

Email Basics & Why Hillary's Email Problem is Worse than You Think

Details

Created: Wednesday, 11 March 2015 11:25

Written by Ax D. WhiteMan

Hillary Clinton didn't just have a private "email account."

She owned a registered domain, (clintonemail.com) and served the domain from a local server, inside her residence, giving her 100% administrative control over email accounts, records, and traffic. This is quite a bit different from having a private "account" - such as a gmail, yahoo, or even an isp hosted account such as sbcglobal.net or a Time Warner Road Runner account.

Some details...

Email addresses have 2 basic parts, the name before the @; which is the account name - and the domain name following the @: which is the domain name. For example, one can reach this writer by emailing This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I own the domain, and have administrative rights to create and delete as many email addresses as I choose, whenever I choose.

In Hillary's situation, there was not even a web host to limit her activity. The domain resolved directly to the physical equipment located in her residence.

For the record, in the history of U.S. Government;

this has NEVER, EVER BEEN DONE BY ANYONE ELSE.

The hardware and software requirements for running ones own mail server are negligible. Email is a rather arcane application. The email protocol was established in the early days of the internet and was written to run on server systems created when a "gigabyte" was a theoretical term and most equipment ran on less than 4 megabytes of RAM. Much of the email traffic on the internet is still served by either Sendmail, Postfix, or Qmail. All open source, all freely available at no cost. The total hardware, software, and tech labor required to set up such a system could easily be done for under $2,000.00

With this system in place, Hillary can create as many email accounts as she chooses, send and delete email permanently, and conceal anything she pleases.

Remember that the only permanent location of these emails are on the physical hard drive in the local computer. In the event she wanted to delete emails, or even the record of entire email addresses, she could simply delete them from the current drive; then back up the accounts and emails she wished to preserve, destroy the original disk drive, install a new clean drive, then restore the accounts from back up. 

The new drive will not even have a relic of the previously deleted emails and deleted email accounts.

This fact renders the idea of investigating her server - meaningless. No person who intended to conceal evidence on a hard drive, would still have any such evidence there. And no person that didn't want the ability to conceal email information - would ever set up such a system.

There seems to be a growing clamor for Hillary to "turn over the server." This is a mistake. It could only serve to create one more scandal that ends with "no evidence."

The crime here was setting up the system - as it was set up - so that verification was impossible. It must be noted that every governmental office that communicated with Hillary at "clintonemail.com" is complicit in this crime. To pretend that investigating "the server" at this point, could yield any evidence of wrongdoing - is a fools game.

If there are emails out there that implicate Hillary in any wrongdoing, they currently only exist on the recipients mail server. If one were serious in finding anything - that would be the direction of investigation.

The larger point is, that Hillary Clinton conducted business as the Secretary of State of the United States of America - for four years; through an obviously rogue email system - and NOBODY did anything about it.

Even now, it's likely that nobody ever will.

 

 

Add a comment

• Print
• Email

FCC Net Neutrality Text - Why can't we see it?

Details

Created: Saturday, 28 February 2015 14:43

Written by Ax D. WhiteMan

It is becoming increasingly difficult to place trust in a Government that has abandoned even the pretense of representative legitimacy. (That is, that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed)

We've been presented with mountains of supposed expert discussion on what the FCC ruling will do, or mean, and how it will - or won't effect us. Yet, no one can claim to have even seen the text of what has passed. The rumored 300+ page document that will now exert authority over our internet; has yet to be released.  

Even more maddening than Nancy Pelosi's famous "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it" comment; is the FCC's stance of, "We've voted on new regulations, but you still can't see them." Until, one supposes, that one is found in violation; at which point fines and penalties will be assessed - and perhaps - if paid - one will be able to see what regulation was violated.  But maybe not even then.

Somehow this reminds me of TARP.

Does anyone else remember the frantic days of the fall of 2008 when we waited on the brink of supposed economic collapse awaiting the passage of TARP?  At the time I said should be called the Obi Wan Kanobi Act - Because supposedly TARP was our only hope .

We were treated to hours of discussion and volumes of articles describing in detail the planned mechanics of a "reverse auction" mechanism where by "troubled assets" would be auctioned and banks liquidity would be repaired.

Then we got to actually see the Legislation. I recall anxiously awaiting the download of it's text. I recall my surprise that there was in fact no "Auction" - just a $700 billion authorization for the Secretary of the Treasury to spend as he saw fit.  Oddly I don't even remember any of the "experts" of the day even bothering to utter a "Never Mind."

Now once again we've got mountains of opinion on both sides telling us "what this means." Yet, in this age of instantaneous communication, where Kim Kardashian's oiled up butt can reach millions within mere minutes; the FCC cannot produce the documents that they've supposedly enacted. (At the risk of commenting before seeing the regs - How will all the folks claiming "All bits are equal" act when their internet activity is forced to wait on Kims butt?)

Thanks for all the commentary by the experts; but contrary to the contention of many, I'm completely capable of reading 300 pages and I'm confident that I understand both the law and technology enough to know what it says.

...and if I ever get to see it; I'll be happy to tell you what it means.

Until then, I'll just wait to hear what I've violated.

Add a comment