Did Obama arrest Innocence of Muslims filmmaker? No, he apologized to Islamic extremists by sending elite marines to kill them

I was dismayed to see that someone on a forum I read is a “moonbat.” As in, someone who believes what he reads at Moonbattery.com.

Here's the article he shared: If This Were Still America, Obama Would Be Forced to Resign

The article claims Obama had the filmmaker of Innocence of Muslims arrested and also that Obama apologized to Islamic extremists. This is the movie that was sent to Islamic countries on 9/11. The actors were dubbed over and had no idea they were making an anti-Islamic movie. Some speculate that the timing of the film and the attacks on U.S. embassies were a coordinated effort by al-Qaeda terrorists.

However, this story comes from Moonbattery which is the final resting place for posts about Zeitgeist, Illuminati, Square Earth, and other Bronnerisms. In other words, it's a conspiracy theorist, crazy propaganda website. People should be ashamed for reading it.

The truth is that the filmmaker was brought in for questioning because he may have violated his parole, not for other reasons.

The Innocence of Muslims “film,” though terrible and insulting to filmmaking, is absolutely protected by free speech.

The article is actually as badly written as the movie was directed and dubbed.

ARTICLE EXCERPT:

“For political purposes, local sheriff’s deputies were used to drag Nakoula in for “questioning” instead of federal agents, but there is no question they were acting with the blessings if not on the direct orders of the Obama Regime, which has openly sided with the Muslim mobs that killed our ambassador by denouncing Nakoula’s insignificant movie and repeating the preposterous lie that it caused the Middle East to go up in flames. “

LET'S EXAMINE.

“there is no question they were” - In other words, the writer didn't bother to investigate.

“Obama Regime, which has openly sided with the Muslim mobs that killed” - Yes, the Obama Admin sent an elite group of Marines to Tripoli to bring the killers to justice. Apparently, the writer thinks that if both Hitler and I were to say we disliked the movie Gigli, that means I'd be endorsing all of his opinions and siding with the genocide of Jews. No, the Obama Admin called a crappy movie a 'crappy movie' and then dealt with the real issue.

It's an insult to call the person that barfed out this anti-Obama article without any research a writer. Shame on those that give the article any credit.

The Facts:

The Filmmaker may have broken his parole: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_21548119

Filmmaker in hiding: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html

Actress Sues Filmmakers for Dubbing Movie into anti-Islamic film

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/innocence-of-muslims-actress-says-she-was-duped-by-filmmaker-17228296

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9554551/Actress-sues-Innocence-of-Muslims-producer.html

Obama sends elite group of Marines to bring killers to justice:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/13/marines-destroyers-sent-in-as-obama-calls-for-justice-in-libya/ 

Filmmaker linked to anti-Muslim movie questioned | Nakoula Basseley Nakoula "Sam Bacile"

Pro-American Libyans kick extremists out of the city where our ambassador was killed

"Some protesters carried signs reading 'The ambassador was Libya's friend' and 'Libya lost a friend,' the AP reported."

This comes after Obama 'apologized' to the Arab world by sending elite marines to kill the extremists who killed our people. Does this mean Obama's apology has now turned Libyans into our friends? Or, maybe it was the fact that we helped them win their freedom from Muammar Gaddafi as part of a joint UN force. You know, the guy that Reagan tried but failed to kill? If killing terrorists is apologizing, Obama sure does a lot of it. Remember Osama Bin Laden? Dead.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14018495-protesting-libyans-storm-militant-compound-in-backlash-against-armed-groups

Not all Muslims will kill you over a movie or poorly drawn cartoon of their Prophet

Still, the Muslim world throwing a hissy fit over the Innocence of Muslims makes me wonder how they'll react when the porn parody, Muhammad Baghs Dad, comes out. Perhaps, it will star Jesus and maybe even include all religions.

I'm sure it will have better acting and production values than Innocence of Muslims.

I partly feel that, so long as there are enemies of freedom of speech who would destroy those who cause offense by merely making a movie or drawing a bad cartoon, it is our duty as a society to continue to produce such offensive materials. That way, the enemies of freedom of speech are drawn out (and can be destroyed). People dying as a result of a movie, cartoon, or the mistreatment of a book is far more offensive than any offense caused by an exercise of creativity or the handling of physical objects.

Once there are no more enemies of freedom, people will stop provoking them. 

(Of course, we don't consider slander and libel to be protected speech. Though a whole lot of politicians and talk radio people somehow get away with lying, don't they?) 

Update Nov 7, 2012:
Calif. Man Behind Anti-Muslim Film Gets Prison

"The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that roiled the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in prison for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction by lying about his identity."

The Right-Wing's Most Brazen Lie of the Election -- Debunked

There is zero evidence that the administration lied or covered anything up in the Benghazi attacks."

Obama vs Romney: Medicare

Here is the Obamacare claim on Medicare Advantage:

    "Today, Medicare Advantage is stronger than ever. Premiums are 16% lower and enrollment is 17% higher than it was before the Affordable Care Act passed.

    Any senior that wants a Medicare Advantage plan can chose one - and when they do, they'll always be promised every single one of Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

    Before Obamacare, the government overpaid the private insurance plans in Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Trustees said those extra payments  - resulted in higher Medicare costs overall and higher premiums for all Part B beneficiaries, not just those enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Everyone paid higher prices so Medicare could give subsidies to private insurance companies.

    All the health care law did was get rid of those extra subsidies - saving $156 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. Because of this and other reforms, people with Medicare will save $4,200 over a decade."

This is actually better than I thought. Medicare Advantage was started with the hopes of seeing cost savings by outsourcing Medicare to private insurers (unlike the rest of Medicare). As it failed miserably with this, I'd have thought they'd have canceled it outright.

Meanwhile, the Ryan plan (which Romney endorsed) would double the costs for future enrollees in Medicare, turning the whole program into a voucher plan for private insurance that provides less assistance than current Medicare. So, while both the "Obama" and "Romney" plans actually "cut" about the same amount from Medicare (reportedly $716 billion). The Obama plan does so by cutting waste and by predicted savings (which may or may not pan out) while the Ryan plan does so by actually reducing benefits (which the first one doesn't). While current seniors wouldn't be affected by the latter, it would harm future seniors like myself.

Read More: A Primer on Paul Ryan's 2011 Medicare Plan
 

A Demonstration Program Conspiracy?

Some people claim there's something sinister about a "demonstration program" being run by the Obama Administration on Medicare. They say it's keeping Medicare prices steady, in order to fool people, only until Obama is reelected. Well, here is the official claim:

"The three-year demonstration project by the Department of Health and Human Services, which began this year, is intended to speed up quality improvement in Medicare Advantage plans as called for under the 2010 health reform law.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that before the new health care reforms were passed, Medicare overpaid private insurers to the tune of 114% above Medicare rates, and lacked any power to assure the care was high quality.

She said that, with the program, Medicare is overpaying private insurers by 107% and more beneficiaries have been switching to higher-rated plans.

"With the demonstration, we're on track to reduce ovepayments," Sebelius said. "I think it's a basic win-win-win situation. We've got lower rates, we've got better-quality plans, and we're on track to reduce the overpayments in the long run."

The demonstration project would cost $8.35 billion over 10 years, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. GAO is the "investigative arm of Congress charged with examining matters relating to the receipt and payment of public funds."

GAO disagrees with the demonstration project and says it would be better to use the quality measures defined under Obamacare. The program hardly sounds sinister. Also if it was started in 2012 and lasts for 3 years, it won't end until 2015, not coinciding with the current election. Even if it did coincide, it wouldn't seem sinister. In fact, GAO says they think costs would be less without it.

So, GAO says the Obamacare quality measures for Medicare are better than the demonstration project.

Keeping Medicare Efficient and Viable

Denise Early of the Tuscon Citizen writes: 

"So insurance companies keep investing billions of dollars to expand their Medicare Advantage business - while Mitt Romney says Obamacare is killing this option for seniors.   As I see it, smaller Advantage plan companies will find it difficult to find enough efficiencies to handle lower payments from Medicare. But the big players will get bigger, and they know they can still make profits with less money from Medicare."

The other option of continuing the overpayments so that many smaller insurers keep swarming around Medicare like sharks and raising Medicare costs for everyone seems like the wrong tactic.

More links on the subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/18/rep-chris-van-hollen-the-romney-ryan-medicare-plan-would-have-immediate-cost-increases-for-seniors/

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/perspectives/971889-465/klein-the-gop-tickets-big-medicare-myth.html

"According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 25% of Medicare recipients (12 million) are enrolled in Medicare Advantage.

But the reason why the program saw cuts in the 2010 health-care law is due to its shortcoming: It's not as cost-efficient as traditional Medicare.

Under Medicare Advantage, the Kaiser Family Foundation says, Medicare ends up paying the private plans MORE per enrollee -- about 7% more -- than the fee-for-service program does."

It sounds very wasteful and inefficient. Nobody would want to continue it, right?

"The plan that I've put forward is a plan very similar to Medicare Advantage. It gives all of the next generation retirees the option of having either standard Medicare, a fee-for-service-type, government-run Medicare, or a private Medicare plan," Mitt Romney told reporters 8/16/2012.

Under the Republican plan, this parade goer will have to sell his Uncle Sam costume on eBay to afford the higher Medicare payments and won't be able to leave the costume to his kids. He'll also have to start selling Meth.

Part of the Republican Plan to Eliminate Medicare Once and For All

I want to point out that Paul Ryan's plan of changing Medicare to an entirely voucher-for-private-insurance based system is in keeping with the Republican plan to eliminate Medicare once and for all. When all Medicare does is give you back less return on your own money to buy private insurance, it won't make any sense for you to pay tax dollars merely to get that money back and have to use it to buy private insurance. The point of Medicare is that it's a massive program that doesn't discriminate due to age. Because it's so large, health providers lose out on tons of business if they reject it. So, they don't reject it. This means seniors can get medical insurance.

Unless part of the Republican plan is to keep around Obamacare, don't bet on having an easy time finding someone to insure you in your senior years.

Paul Ryan: ‘We Need’ A Man Who Thinks Medicare Is Unconstitutional ‘In The United States Senate’

 "Mourdock mocked the very idea that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are constitutional at a Tea Party rally last May. You can watch the man Paul Ryan begged GOP donors to send to the Senate ridiculing the idea that Medicare is constitutional here:"

GOP Rep. Todd Akin Thinks Medicare Is Unconstitutional, Runs Medicare-Based Attack Ad Regardless

A Conclusion

Seniors who vote for Romney/Ryan based on the GOP Medicare claims are selling out their kids and future generations because of false claims made about their own Medicare security.

Chuck Norris versus Dave Mustaine

Dave Mustaine: No More Mr. Nice Guy

I met Dave Mustaine at a concert (Gigantour in 2005), and he was a nice guy. His band, Megadeth, has been my favorite metal band since high school, and unlike others of their ilk, has consistently released fan-pleasing albums to this very day. Also unlike other metal bands, their music often has a political or societal message, such as being anti-war, anti-censorship, anti-corruption, or being against canned hunting. The latter won them the Doris Day award from the Humane Society of the United States in 1993.

At a recent Megadeth concert in Singapore, Dave Mustaine has recently claimed that Obama is behind the numerous shooting deaths that have occurred in the United States. Not only is this crazy conspiracy stuff, it's also bad-mouthing the United States while visiting a foreign country. I thought conservatives opposed that?

It saddens me to say that if this is the sort of message the band endorses, I can't buy anymore of their albums. To cheapen the tragedies of the Batman theater shooting, the Sikh temple massacre, and other shootings in America by endorsing a cheap political conspiracy theory claiming Obama orchestrated them all is disgusting. I'm very saddened.

People are far too quick to believe things without evidence. Dave is obviously very gullible. Without knowing anything about the group, he once endorsed the IRA at an Irish concert, causing a riot. Maybe all the drugs turned his brain to Swiss cheese, making his being clean irrelevant. The band's twitter account made things worse by sharing this link to "clarify" the matter. It's from the conspiracy website for gullible people which shows that apparently his ravings which they encourage/enable have been going on for some time.

That Megadeth apparently started becoming a pro-war band should have been another sign that things were going downhill. I'll bet Dave also thinks Obama had him thrown out of Metallica. I have some advice for you, Dave. Stick to thrashing.

Megaidiot! Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine says Obama mastermind behind ‘staged’ shootings in Aurora, Colo. and at Wisconsin Sikh temple 

Aurora massacre victim blasts Megadeth singer’s anti-Obama rant

Chuck Norris (May I call you Chuckles?)

I think the universe must really hate us that it took Bruce Lee and left us with this guy. Well, Chuck Norris loves free speech (unless it disagrees with his), freedom of religion (unless it disagrees with his), and wants us to take lessons in sexuality from the 1700s. Shut up, Chuck Moron. Here's his disgusting commentary from WND, home for hate-speechers.

The offending article: God, Guns, and Gays

So, Chuck Norris uses a law that was proposed by Thomas Jefferson 10 (okay, 9) years prior to the Constitution to claim that the Founding Fathers opposed gay rights? Does Chuck realize that this proposed law (which was rejected) was actually an attempt at liberalization? That's right. Castration would have been more liberal because the current penalty (which Virginia decided to keep) was death. For all Chuck knows (which apparently isn't much), this was Jefferson's attempt to start slowly reducing penalties until they were eliminated.

Chuck says he wants to turn back the clock to our founders to find the answers. He discounts that society will rightfully become more free as people become less prejudiced and bigoted. It sounds like he's okay turning the clock back far enough that slavery is legal and women can't vote.

Let's not forget that the actual definition of sodomy is any non-procreative sex between any sexes. How many straight people want to outlaw sodomy knowing that?

Chuck also hates freedom of speech: "How abhorring it is when the freedom of the press is abused to demean the biblical God and the most sacred couple in Christendom, especially right before Easter. If the cartoon depicted Allah or Muhammad, there undoubtedly would have been a national decry of bigotry." Yes, Chuckles (may I call you that?), it's abhorrent when others say things that offend you. Actually, it's really not. Freedom of speech is meant to protect the speech that we disagree with. What you should be asking is, "Why do Christians not have murderous riots when their God is insulted but Muslims do?" We mustn't coddle those who whine about being offended, and we mustn't tolerate religious violence in the name of such idiocy. Frankly, no amount of burning Bibles or Korans is worth taking even one human life. Life is more precious. Well, except for Hitler's life. I think we can agree on that.

Special Guest Star: Bruce Lee

So, Chuckles, take your bigotry and religious dogma and roundhouse kick them up your own ass. Seriously. You've admitted you suck at fighting compared to Bruce Lee, and now, it's obvious Bruce beats you at philosophy.

"Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it." -
As quoted in Bruce Lee : Fighting Spirit (1994) by Bruce Thomas (1994), p.44
(It's as applicable to politics and political parties as it was to martial art styles.)

"Neither. I think of myself as a human being." -
When asked if he thought of himself as Chinese or American,
The Warrior Within (1996), p. 87

"To be perfectly frank, I really do not." -
When asked if he believed in God, The Warrior Within (1996), p. 128

So, anyway, who wins in the Chuck Norris versus Dave Mustaine fight? The answer is Bruce Lee.

Be Water My Friend! Bruce Lee Remix

Preserve Religious Freedom

Seen this sign?

The Preserve Religious Freedom Yard Signs

In the last year, a big deal was made of the part of the health care bill which specifies that contraception must be covered by health insurance. Leaders of religious institutions (hospitals and universities - houses of worship are excluded from the requirement) have been objecting to providing their employees with contraception coverage. Religious leaders in these institutions have claimed that if other people have contraception made available to them (at the expense of the religious institution's employee health care plan) that this is a violation of the institution's religious freedom. In particular, Catholic dogma objects to contraception even though  many Catholics use it.

If the government mandated that some Catholics use contraception, that would be a violation of religious freedom. That is not happening. Nobody is being forced to use contraception. That is up to the individual. No religious freedom is being violated. Are "institutions" even people who can have "beliefs"? And does this argument mean Catholics refuse to do business with any company that provides contraception coverage to its employees?

Innocent civilians are being killed by the United States military in other countries, funded by all U.S. taxpayers. Certainly, the misguided folks who believe there is an attack on religious freedom believe this is a more serious violation of their religious freedom. One of the Ten Commandments is: "Thou shalt not kill."

Protesting contraception covered by health insurance is most similar to protesting soldiers being provided with guns at taxpayer expense. There will exist the possibility that others might do something which you don't believe you should do. However, what other people do among themselves cannot violate your religious freedom. You remain able to believe what you want to believe. Freedom of religion should not give you the right to violate the law with your actions. If a law is worthy of existing, everyone must obey or it is worthless.

If the practice of some religion required murder, should that be okay under religious freedom? No. Let's not forget that the government outlawed Mormon polygamy so that now it's no longer part of their beliefs. That was certainly a heinous government violation of religious freedom. What sort of religion changes their belief when a government tells them it's wrong? Perhaps, Mitt Romney will legalize polygamy if elected. After all, that's traditional marriage in his religion's belief (though they now claim otherwise).

Sadly, Obama capitulated to the demands of the religious institutions so that now health insurers must provide contraception at their own expense. This means that such institutions will not be paying, even indirectly, for the contraception of others. Yet, they still complain. Why? A nasty politician like John Boehner (R-OH) would be remiss to let a good attack go to waste, even if it's baseless.

Related Articles:

Should Catholic and Other Religious Institutions Have to Cover Birth Control?

5 Things You Should Know About Religion and Contraception

Many Catholic Universities, Hospitals Already Cover Contraception In Their Health Insurance Plans

Federal Judge Dismisses Prominent Evangelical College’s Lawsuit Against Obamacare

Obama announces ‘accommodation’ for religious institutions on contraception

It's not religious freedom he wants. It's religious tyranny over others.

Pharmacists

If someone's job is to sell things, it stands to reason that only those who are willing to sell those things should be hired or remain employed. If you're hiring for a hardware store which can only put one clerk on duty at time, would you hire a clerk who refuses to sell lawnmowers? No, you'd hire someone able to do the whole job.

If a pharmacist refuses the morning after pill to a woman because of the pharmacist's religious beliefs and she becomes pregnant as a result of that denial, that pharmacist should be liable for at least half the child support payments.

Employers shouldn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, orientation, or any other factor which has no bearing on the ability to work. However, people unwilling to do the job for which they are hired should be fired.

It makes me sick that there is a conscience exception for things like pharmacists denying some people medicine just because the pharmacists themselves wouldn't use it. It all stems from a nonsense idea that somehow what others do would violate my religious beliefs. What this is really about is others forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of others.

Forcing your religion upon others isn't an exercise of religious freedom. It's denying religious freedom to others. That pharmacist who denied a woman contraception violated her religious freedom as well as failing to do the job for which he was hired.


Religious Conservatives Love Protecting Religious Freedom When It's About Controlling Women

It's all about contraception, isn't it? When it's not about contraception, it's about abortion. Though sometimes, it's about oppressing gays despite what the Bible says. In fact, some congregations of the Reform Jews, American Baptists, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalists, Methodists, the Society of Friends, and the United Church of Christ have performed marriages for same-sex couples. The fight to ban same-sex marriage is an attack on their religious freedom.

If I ever hear religious conservatives raising a big stink about taxpayer funded murder of civilian "collateral damage" by our military, they might finally seem not so much like creepy misogynists. Except for Rush Limbaugh, he's earned his title of king of the creepy misogynists.

Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, who told Congress about how some women need expensive types of contraception for medical reasons other than birth control, by saying that she said she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford her birth control pills. He called her a whore and said she should make a sex tape public since her sexual activity was being subsidized by the state. In truth, Sandra Fluke never testified about herself, and the amount of birth control pills someone takes isn't related to how much sex someone has. Limbaugh's defenders claim he's merely satire, but too many of his listeners actually believe what he says for it to be defended as any form of humor.

Here are some other sexist Rush Limbaugh comments and remember, Mitt Romney says, "I find it hard to disagree with Rush Limbaugh."

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 12, 2005

“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
~Rush Limbaugh, referring to Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School who was denied the right to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception, in which she planned to discuss a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts, February 29, 2012

“When women got the right to vote is when it all went down hill,”  July 3, 2012


You can read the Sandra Fluke Testimony Transcript as a PDF.


I'll leave you with a video of incorrect and offensive conservative statements about women's health:

Santorum isn't just some lone offensive person. He's part of a movement which values men more than women victims. Otherwise, this wouldn't be the case -- 31 States Allow Rapists Custody and Visitation Rights.

And please, drop the War on Christmas nonsense. Some Christians act like it's the worst thing in the world to acknowledge that there are other religions. Greeters at stores who say, "Happy Holidays," are not harming any religions by acknowledging the numerous religious holy days that occur around that time of year. I personally like to say, "Merry Christmas," but "Happy Holidays" would work too since it essentially means "Happy Holy Days."

Mitt Romney on Health Care

Barack Obama wanted a public option, but Congress passed the Affordable Care Act with a mandate instead of a public option. This became known as Obamacare because Obama signed it into law. See Mitt Romney advocate for the mandate, i.e. Obamacare. He only now opposes it because his opponent is for it.

But don't take my word for it, take Mitt Romney's word for it.




Romney Care: A Model For Health Care Reform? 

 

Mitt Romney on RomneyCare's Individual Mandate as a National Model 

Mitt Romney defends individual mandate as "fundamentally a conservative principle"

See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate 

Romney supports taxes on those who freeload off the system by not purchasing private health insurance. As a typical political hypocrite, he called the same mandate in Obamacare a tax on the middle class.

Hear him say, "I like mandates."

As late as 2009, Romney supported the Romneycare model, the basis of Obamacare.

Romney said Obama wanted a single-payer public option (which is true) and that his mandate plan is better. Obama and the Democrats gave America the system Romney wanted. He's now campaigning against it and saying he'll repeal it. Romney's turnabout is the action of a man who doesn't care about the American people and who only desires power.

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Andrea Saul, one of Romney's campaign spokespeople, drew conservative ire for saying that a tragic death mentioned by the Obama campaign could have been avoided if that person had lived in Massachusetts with Romneycare. Since Obamacare does the same things as Romneycare, conservative backlash upon this woman was swift as she highlighted their (deadly for Americans) hypocrisy.

Fortunately, the GOP doesn't need to worry about being called a one trick hypocrisy pony. The Romney campaign also accused the Obama administration of gutting welfare work requirements by doing what Romney requested the Bush administration do in 2005.

Obama supports 2006 Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney doesn't support 2006 Mitt Romney.

I'm going to support Obama in 2012. Obama and the Democrats support Mitt Romney from 2006, and that's the sort of common sense thinking we need to agree is the right track. It's sad how some politicians often only do the right thing when they're not campaigning. Since the Democrats are running on common sense, including past Republican ideas, Republicans are taking the low road and campaigning against common sense, including some past Republican ideas.

The Republican propaganda was so effective that in the 2010 elections, the people of Ohio voted yes on an issue that would prevent Ohio from enacting legislation similar to what worked in Massachusetts. The same people that voted yes on that issue 3 (saying "no" to Romney's ideas) are likely to vote for Romney in 2012. It's ludicrous. There's a long list of benefits Ohio will still see as a result of Obamacare since that state issue is overruled by federal law. In essence, issue 3 had no effect on Obamacare. It only prevents Ohio from taking the proven, Republican-approved steps to improve health care.

Have you noticed that Romney refuses to release his taxes from years prior from him deciding to run for President? What is he hiding? Did he only start paying taxes once he decided to run for President? As you can see from this link, other Presidents who've gotten their party's nomination have released more, except for a few Republicans who have lost. Only Romney and McCain have released just 2 years of returns in the last 34 years of Presidential candidates.

Presidential Tax Returns
How Many Years of Tax Returns Have Presidential Candidates Released in the Past?

You can take the word of religious fundamentalist Rick Santorum (who would prefer that the US be a country of religious laws, a Christian version of Iran) that Romney is simply an Obama who isn't honest about the programs he supports.

And just because I can, here's a video of Mitt Romney not knowing that the President needs Congressional approval to go to war and being schooled by Ron Paul.

It baffles me how Republicans can be so hungry for a war. What we don't need to do is increase our national debt by killing people in other countries who aren't an imminent threat. Obama has been taking the diplomatic approach with Iran. Republicans won't seem to be happy until the conflict we want to prevent is made a certainty. They seem convinced that the Iranian government will nuke us as soon as they get nukes even though we'll certainly reduce their country to glass. The goal of those fundamentalist Muslims is the spread of Islam. They can't do that if they're dead. I reject the idea that they're an imminent threat. Now, I'm not saying I want a dangerous regime to have a nuclear weapon. I'm just saying that starting a war to prevent a war is self-defeating.

I leave you with a video of Obama slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon.

The topic of the night was education. 

The Bible Mandates Gay Marriage

Now that I have your attention, I can tell you that the real title of this article is How to Use the Bible Correctly. If that is something that interests you, read on. As for the Biblical mandate on gay marriage, that will be addressed.

There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible. That's a statement that those who call it “The Good Book” will no doubt agree with. It instructs people to be good neighbors. It tells us how Jesus took the time to heal the sick and feed the hungry. These are good things, and everyone should aspire to be good. And as far as evangelizing others goes, the saying, “you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar,” holds true.

But over the years, it has been used to justify all manner of evils (slavery, men beating their wives, banning interracial marriage). People who are self-assured of their righteousness will use anything they can to justify themselves. This is why it is necessary to learn what the Bible actually says. There are many translations of the Bible, and translations which are not literal are inevitably filtered by the biases of the translator.

The current Biblical hot topic in America is homosexuality and gay marriage.

It is something Jesus never spoke about. Many say that Jesus never said to ignore the other passages they claim show homosexuality as sinful. However, it's also important to note Christians don't need to obey the laws of the Old Testament. They were temporary laws that Jesus absolved humanity of with his death. He then put forth a new law:

Romans 13:8-10 (NIV)

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law.

9 The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Galatians 3:23-25 (KJV) also specifies Christians are no longer longer under the supervision of the old law.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

When Paul was in Rome, he was disgusted by boys forced into male prostitution. The oldest copies we have of the Bible implicitly speaks against male prostitutes and temple sex servants. These are words that were changed to mean simply “homosexuality” in various translations. Those translations are incorrect.

In the following passage, you will note the usage of the term “natural use.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Modern learning shows us that people are born gay, straight, or bisexual. Scientific research consistently shows it. Likewise, over 1,500 animals are known to display same-sex behavior or take same-sex partners. As humanity has grown in understanding of the world and nature, we've become better able to understand the Bible. Since it is natural, it is not a sin as the following verse explains:

1 Timothy 4:4 (KJV)

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving

The sin that Romans shows is when people go against their nature. Heterosexuals must not engage in homosexual behavior or the reverse.

Now, examine the following verse:

1 Corinthians 7:9 (KJV)

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

This passage speaks about fornication outside of marriage, and how it is a sin. It states it's better to avoid sexual relations but to be married if one cannot abstain. Corinthians is noteworthy in that it's contradictory to where in Genesis 1:28 it says to, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Since marriage is necessary for physically intimate couples, even gays must be married. Since people must not go against their “natural use,” gays must be married to gain entrance to Heaven. Denying gay couples marriage, thereby denying them salvation by preventing them from obeying the commands of the Bible, is not an act love.

Another passage used to condemn gays is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which reads (in the King James):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The two highlighted phrases are translations of the Greek words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai.” “Effeminate” is clearly a mistranslation of “malakoi” which mean “soft” or “pliable” and is likely referring to weak-willed individuals who do no good. Arsenokoitai is more likely correctly translated as rapist or prostitute. However, a true translation isn't known since Paul invented the word. So the truth is that assigning any meaning to it now is either guesswork (educated or not) or fulfilling a bias.

So, why might God have created people as gay? Although God is beyond human understanding, here are some possibilities: to deal with human overpopulation, to create couples to adopt the abandoned children of heterosexuals, or to simply test our ability to love others different from ourselves.

Although the Old Testament laws doesn't apply to Christians as they did to the Jewish tribes, they are included in the Bible for historical purposes. Let's look at what they say:

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (word-for-word translation from the original Hebrew)

And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them.

First off: Two men don't do “it” the same way a man and a woman do. So, this passage can simply be taken as common sense instead of a prohibition against homosexuality. Or, it simply prohibits it within a pagan temple.

Secondly: It is quite rude for two people to do “it” on someone else's bed. This passage can simply be taken as proper etiquette. If two men are together, they should use one of their beds and not some woman's bed.

As for Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings, homosexuality is mistranslated in many texts from the Hebrew word "Qadesh” which is a word that refers to prostitutes in pagan temples. Some translations use the word sodomite which when taken to mean homosexuality is doubly wrong. In modern context, sodomy is any non-procreative sex act (including heterosexual). Furthermore, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being unneighborly, not for having homosexuals. It wasn't some happy gay paradise. It was a place that threatened to rape angels. Jude 1:7 further prohibits sex outside the species. Given that the only “godly” man in town offered his two virgin daughters to be savagely raped by the crowd that wanted angel flesh, nobody could argue that wiping out that city was a bad thing – if even the best man in town was that type of scumbag.

Wanting gay marriage banned is no different than wanting to ban pork for everyone because your religion is against it. It is nonsensical to think that others eating pork would be violating your religious freedom, just as it is nonsensical to think that the marriage of a gay couple somehow threatens any straight marriage.

If the Bible is truly about love and is not to be used for hate, one should consider the phrase, “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Since being gay is a natural part of a person, “hating the sin” is really “hating the person.”

For those who truly wish to turn society from what the Bible clearly defines as sin, be vocal about the evils of sex outside of marriage and divorce. Any who have done such things and are still anti-gay are living a hypocritical double-standard, applying what they mistakenly think is Biblical law without applying such laws to themselves.

Religious Freedom and Civil Rights

If you're using the Bible to hate others, you're using it wrong. If your religion says differently, your religion cares more about its dogma than it does about the Bible. There is no Biblical justification for bigotry against gays. A Christian denomination which denounces gays simply does so because it is bigoted against gays. Such a denomination which seeks to impose its religious views upon the government is attacking the religious freedom of denominations that disagree. To ban gay marriage is an attack on religious freedom. As marriage is a matter of civil law involving a license and a legal contract (performed as a civil or religious ceremony), preventing certain groups of people from the ability to marry is also an attack on civil rights which violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bearing False Witness that It's a Sin Creates Violence

When people put forth an incorrect belief that being gay is wrong, it creates an atmosphere that encourages some bigots to commit violence against gays, and those who create that environment bear responsibility for the violence it has wrought. This hostile environment also encourages young gays to hate themselves. The gay teen suicide rate is 5 times that of straight teenagers. Several murders and violent attacks on gays have made headlines this year: two lesbian teens shot to death, a lesbian beaten along with having anti-gay slurs carved into her stomach, and a lesbian and her straight friends beaten by a group yelling anti-gay slurs. After decades of attacks on gays in the US, a gay rights supporter ineptly attempted to attack an organization (the Family Research Council) that fights for anti-gay causes and spreads lies about gays. Hate breeds more hate. It is time to stop the intolerance and stop the violence that it causes. One will end when the other does. It's not only what the Bible advocates; it's the right thing to do.

Conclusions:

• The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality
• Even if the Old Testament is interpreted incorrectly to prohibit homosexuality, it doesn't apply to Christians
• The Bible says marriage is required for intimate couples (including gays)
• The purpose of marriage is to sanctify fornication, not to produce offspring
• Gays are natural and created by God. Hating gays is hating the person and not the sin
• Proclaiming gays are doing something wrong creates the reason that violent bigots commit violence against gays and increases the suicide rate among young gays
• Even if you dislike homosexuality, it isn't the role of government to force others to live their life how you want to live yours
• Banning marriage for gays violates the freedom of religion for religions that wish to marry gays
• Marriage is a matter of civil law, that can be performed by religion but which doesn't have to be.

Links:

Bible Verses:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=KJV

https://gracewalk.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/attract-more-flies-with-honey-psalms-106/

http://bible.cc/1_timothy/4-4.htm

What the Bible says and means about homosexuality:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Why the Old Testament laws no longer apply:

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/WhyWeDontFollowtheOldTestament.htm

http://74.220.219.81/~isocketn/scripturessay/article.php?cat=&id=615

Gay Animals:

http://www.livescience.com/2534-sex-couples-common-wild.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

http://www.livescience.com/1125-homosexual-animals-closet.html

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Being gay isn't a choice:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://k9keystrokes.hubpages.com/hub/BORN-GAY-research-says-yes

http://current.com/green/89580252_homosexuality-not-a-choice-say-researchers.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/16/opinion/hormel-shorter-gay-not-a-choice/index.html

http://bkissel1984.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/29/2877463-homosexuality-its-not-a-choice

Different take with the argument that God blesses same-sex marriages:

http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

Did The Catholic Church Ordain Gay Weddings?

("a type of Christian homosexual 'marriage' did exist as late as the 18th century")

http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm

Marriage is a Civil Right:

(proclaimed by Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 - 1967)

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

http://www.marriageequality.org/religious-vs-civil

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/is-marriage-a-civil-right/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/sorry-north-carolina-marriage-is-a-basic-civil-right/2012/05/09/gIQAEB7sCU_blog.html

Biblical Definitions of Marriage:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2012/09/17/op-ed-moby-dick-great-green-whale-and-biblical-definition-marriage

Anti-Gay Violence:

(a small sampling, just some ones which made major headlines)

Two lesbian teens shot to death – June 23, 2012

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/25/12402620-teen-lesbian-couple-found-shot-in-texas-park?lite

Lesbian beaten by men yelling anti-gay slurs in Kentucky – July 17^, 2012

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lesbian-teen-beaten-four-men-kentucky190712

Lesbian tied up, beaten, and had "dyke" carved into her stomach – July 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178033/Lesbians-home-stormed-masked-men-carve-anti-gay-slurs-body.html

Father heartlessly disowns gay son in violation of the Bible's law to love - 2012

http://gawker.com/5932669/goodbye-dad-father-disowns-gay-son-with-shockingly-heartless-letter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/father-letter-disowning-gay-son_n_1752053.html

Scottish gay man beaten and burned to death on way to grandmothers birthday party - 2011

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/burned-gay-man-beaten-to-death-was-on-way-to-grandmothers-80th-birthday/news/2011/10/24/29136

Three Kentucky Teens Arrested For Allegedly Beating Lesbian High School Student and Trying to Throw Her Off a Cliff - 2010

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/22/three-kentucky-teens-arrested-for-allegedly-beating-lesbian-high-school-student-and-trying-to-throw-her-off-a-cliff/

Gay teens 5 times as likely to kill themselves

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/

Gay teen suicide rates lower in supportive environments

http://www.parentdish.com/2011/04/19/gay-teen-suicide/

Why the Family Research Council is a hate group

http://www.americablog.com/2012/08/why-family-research-council-is-hate.html

Bonus Feature

And as far as the Bible being the strict and literal Word of God and not filtered with possible error by those who wrote it, I want to share with you an excerpt from the following passage.

1 Corinthians 7:25 (KJV)

I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

In other words, he says, “Now, this bit isn't the Word of God. It's just my opinion.” This passage alone disproves the blanket statement that the entire Bible is the verbatim Word of God. (The section it introduces discusses virgins and marriage.)

  

Credit: Anonymous sourced pictures from Facebook.

The Evil of Paul Ryan

Romney picking Paul Ryan for his VP should assure Romney's loss.

Ryan wants to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system providing far less economic assistance. This will make America's seniors poorer. Compared to Medicare, participants will pay double under the Ryan plan. However, the taxes on the rich can be decreased.

Ryan wants to protect military spending (to help kill people in foreign countries) and cut spending for education and for feeding America's needy. And as the federal government cuts funding that helps states and localities, we can expect to see a downgrade in all state services: education, police, firefighters, health services, and so forth. Things like libraries will be the first to go. Better to bomb people in huts than prevent Americans from dying? You know, because we need to buy 33 tanks the military doesn't want at a cost of $91 million (the tanks aren't blamed on Ryan but are an example of the real government waste).

"Under Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, the CBO projected in 2011 that deficits would be 2 percent of GDP by 2022, compared to 2.75 percent under current law, and compared to 9 percent in 2010." - ABC News

Ryan wants to cut Pell Grants although the amount is debated. If he's not cutting it, he's making 1 million students ineligible for it and also not saying what else he's cutting. My wife was only able to afford college due to Pell Grants.

Even Newt Gingrich called Ryan's budget plans right-wing social engineering. A great amount of harm will be done to America to reduce America's debt by less than 1 percent more than under the Democrats' plan. It's not worth it. Even one of our primary Founding Fathers said carrying a small national debt would be a good thing if it was small: "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing," Alexander Hamilton, 1781.

Ryan's philosophy believes that Social Security and all forms of government assistance are wrong and/or unconstitutional. Yet, he's not opposed to using them to benefit himself just as Ayn Rand also needed to go on Social Security to survive. "After Ryan’s father passed away, he saved Social Security survivor’s benefits to pay for attending Miami University, where Ryan double majored in economics and political science in 1992." It seems these people believe government assistance isn't necessary. All people can just collect their parents' Social Security for school or borrow $20,000 from their rich parents to start a business.

Ryan subscribes to the philosophy of Ayn Rand whose philosophy is evil and incompatible with religion (because it's anti-religion). She believed charity was morally wrong, that atheism was right, and that one should get theirs and leave everyone else to fend for themselves. A serial killer was also one of her role models because he did what he wanted to do. Many people admire Ayn Rand's thinking as radical, and it was. She fled communism, and what she experienced there gave her an irrational aversion to anything designed to help anyone. The irrational feelings of a sociopath are radical, but they should never be used as guidance by anyone else. Despite her being anti-religion, many consider the followers (worshippers?), Randians, of Ayn Rand to be in a religious cult because it fits many of the criteria defining a cult.

Ryan once said he followed Saint Thomas Aquinas (an Italian Dominican priest), not Ayn Rand. Aquinas felt it was immoral for sellers to raise their prices simply because buyers were in pressing need for a product. In other words, Aquinas opposed the free market. Aquinas wrote of the first principle, "this is the first precept of the law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this." Instead, Ryan's actions and legislating promote the idea that the first principle is that rich people shouldn't have to give up any of their money or stuff. As Jesus Christ preached against being rich, Ryan's lies are obvious, and if anything, Rand's teachings match those of an anti-Christ. Ryan also explicitly said in 2005 that Ayn Rand was his inspiration and gave copies of her book "Atlas Shrugged" to staffers as Christmas presents.

What has the world come to when we embrace an evil little man like Ryan as opposed to Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."

- and -

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Don't be fooled by conservative claims that Ryan's way is the only way to fix things. His way of fixing things by letting the weak die (as his economic Darwinism dictates) isn't really a way to fix things anyway.

So, voting for Romney will either get us a Romney that endorses the Ryan budget plan, or the Romney who's no different from Obama. Romney:

Wants gays allowed into the Boy Scouts.

Agrees with Obamacare, but he'll try to repeal it anyway - or so he says.

Was pro-choice. "In 1994, as a Senate candidate, he invoked the story of a 'close family relative' who had died after an illegal abortion and insisted that abortion should be 'safe and legal,' though he was personally opposed."

Well, Romney will have one difference from Obama. He'll fight for lower taxes on the rich at the expense of everyone else in opposition to Thomas Jefferson who felt all government tax burden should fall on the wealthy whenever possible.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to
exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher
portions of property in geometric progression as they rise"
 - Thomas Jefferson

All Americans have a moral obligation, not just as Americans - but as humans, to vote against Romney and Ryan. Vote Obama, Gary Johnson, or even Jill Stein. However, voting for Romney/Ryan will have real victims and you will be the puller of the trigger.

There is no moral reason to vote for Romney. The only reason would be if you're rich, want to keep more of your money (i.e. only want your tax money used to help you personally and not anyone else), and don't care about others.

It is very telling by anti-porn Romney's endorsement by porn star Jenna Jameson who said, "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office." Well, maybe that's true when you're an amoral rich person without care for country or fellow Americans. Common sense dictates individuals do better when the society around them does better. Well, these people don't have a lot of common sense.

All the above should be enough. Besides the fact is that domestic austerity simply doesn't work and that the Ryan plan isn't the sort of government we should be striving for based on our Constitution and the Founding Fathers.