LGBTQ+ – DNC-Consulting

I Have Had ENOUGH! – The Trans/Drag Movement

?u=https3.bp.blogspot.com-fYRTNk48SCwT8ua0IRDWPIAAAAAAAAFZUpexSmJsN2Kos1600overcoming-adversity-help-yourself-believe-cubby-motivational-1289878102.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 Last week, feel free to look it up on YouTube, Officer Tatum was discussing a Drag Queen show where children are present, and the Drag Queen is exposing their underwear regularly to the horror of the children attending. Now, take a minute and put your critical thinking hat on. If a man or woman exposes their drawers to a child anywhere, that person is arrested for exposure and investigated for child endangerment and other potential crimes. Yet, if the person claims to be a cross-dressing member of the LGBTQ+ community, the law somehow doesn’t apply. Tell me why!

Recently, again YouTube has a video, a mother hears about a Drag Queen indecently exposing themselves at her daughter’s school. Indecent exposure, as defined in legal communities, is “the crime of displaying one’s genitalia to one or more people in a public place, usually with the apparent intent to shock the unsuspecting viewer and give the exposer a sexual charge.” It is important to note that in many U.S. jurisdictions, “it is not required that someone observe the act, or see the perpetrator’s private parts, in order for the perpetrator to face criminal charges.” Never forget that those exposing themself in public are at risk of committing more serious sexual crimes and are a danger to society. The mother wears the same outfit to the school board and is considered immodestly dressed for a public forum. News stations blurred the mother’s image to prevent problems with the FCC. Why wasn’t the Drag Queen treated similarly? Why is there a two-tier judicial system in the Republic of the United States of America?

Earlier in 2022, a video is taken of a child slipping cash into the underwear of a Drag Queen. Why haven’t any of these parents been investigated for child endangerment? Children deserve to be raised by parents who are not abusing them by exposing the child to the sexual predilections of a perverted mind. How many more instances of child endangerment are needed before schools, governments, and the judicial system before we as a society take action to stop this chicanery? ?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-fGEUjJsJ2h4VcJgswaisnIAAAAAAAABcsoFqEewPF_E4s1600quote-if-the-freedom-of-speech-is-taken-away-then-dumb-and-silent-we-may-be-led-like-sheep-to-the-george-washington-193690.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

All are created equally. All are equal under the law. These are not aphorisms or nice thoughts; they are how society works. We must be able to trust the legal system to treat ALL equally under the law. Yet, if you choose to cross-dress, believing you are a soul in the wrong body, somehow you have special treatment under the law and can commit crimes that others would be jailed and rightfully ostracized from society for committing.

Curiosity is no sin, and I have long wondered why we hear stories of men crashing women’s locker rooms but never a woman entering a man’s locker room. A trans boy in Vermont crashes a girl’s locker room, makes snide and disparaging comments, makes the girls feel uncomfortable, and the girls are punished. America has witnessed a star varsity girl be a quarterback on a football team. Yet, she never crashed the boy’s locker room. I have been in school districts where girls have wrestled on the boys’ wrestling team; they never thought to watch the boys change, dress, disparage comments, or make the boys feel uncomfortable. Have you ever wondered why this is always a one-directional story, boys and men against women and girls?

Since SCOTUS ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, the claim has been made that children would be sacrificed for political correctness. What have we seen happen in America; child molesters are now called “Minor Attracted People,” Drag Queens are paid tax dollars to dance and expose themselves to children in schools, and explicit LGBTQ+ pornography is peddled through school libraries to children who should not be exposed to this garbage. Why? Do not misunderstand; I am thoroughly against heterosexual pornography being peddled to children. We have laws against heterosexual porn marketing and set legal age limits. Why does gay porn not have the same common sense approaches and age restrictions? Lemmings 1

In 2019, I substitute taught at a high school in Albuquerque, NM, for several months. I was horrified at what passed for A.P. English reading materials. Seeing the reading materials that described explicit details of gay sexual activity was sickening. Peddle heterosexual pornography with this explicit amount of detail to minors, and you would be jailed, and rightly so. There are laws restricting this material from minors, but somehow if the materials are gay sexual activity, the rules magically do not apply. Why?

I have seen reading materials pushed by the American Library Association (ALA) that are so obscene I could not finish reading them, and I am not a young mind in K-12. Let me elaborate upon this significance. In Junior High school (1989-1991), I challenged myself to learn about the world. In seventh grade, I was going to read all the books in the Crosby Junior High School library. I was exposed to harlequin romances that were inappropriate for my age, and regret having read them. I read Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, the Koran, ideals, and philosophies from all over the world, and I am better for the experience. I wanted an expanded mind; I developed my mind and then felt better about experiencing and experimenting with the world.

NO Fear Generally, I am against banning books, but I am all in for age appropriateness in materials offered for reading. Tell me, should kindergarten-aged children be learning about masturbation? Their young minds and bodies are not developed sufficiently, yet what do we find in kindergarten required reading, how to masturbate? It was inappropriate to have harlequin romances in a junior high school library. What I needed was to learn about love, not sex. Not knowing there was a difference cost me a lot of time and relationships. What is the exposure to gay sexual details doing to the children’s minds right now? Why are these materials not only allowed but promoted to children?

President Thomas Jefferson, when discussing equality in 1776, rightly reminded his countrymen that he never intended to say anything original in the Declaration but only “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.” Well, with this missive, my intent is similar; I desire to place before you, dear reader, the common sense of this subject, in plain terms, firmly stated sufficient to command your attention and recognize the evil that has beset this nation.

There is no excuse for the sexual attacks on our children and youth in the name of equality. Equality has become the brick stick to beat populations into submission and chain those minds in captivity. I choose to allow all the freedom to act as they choose, with two provisions:

I am allowed to act as I so choose.
Those who think differently do NOT use the power of governmental force to compel me to give up my liberties encompassed in the first provision.

If you choose to dress as a different sex, gender, or type of person, you are more than free to do so. Make your choices, live your consequences, and leave me alone. However, the LGBTQ+ community is not happy leaving people alone; they insist on stealing rights and liberties through judicial twisting, legislation, and bureaucratic fiat, which is immoral, unethical, and illegal.

Exclamation Mark Where are the rights of parents? On YouTube, a discussion was held that a mother and father had no legal say in what their child was taught in his second-grade classroom. Really, where did the rights of parents go? In 6^th -12^th grade, I freely admit I forged parental signatures on permission forms. Yet, my parents were still afforded their right to say no and tell the school board. More, when my mother became vociferous sufficiently to make a nuisance, she was jailed for contempt regarding teacher overreach in what was being taught to my younger brothers.

The oppression of parental rights is not new, but it has taken a decidedly dangerous turn, and this trend MUST be reversed! The class I hated the most in school sexual education. In the eight different high schools I attended, this class was masked under the guise of reproductivity, family planning, health, and other less obnoxious sounding titles. But always, the class was sexual education, and too often, the course sickened me mentally and physically. Yet, in all eight high schools, the classes were made mandatory, not by parents, but by legislatures who had been hoodwinked by Planned Parenthood and other nefarious political bodies. I learned about women’s periods and cycles in junior high and was physically ill. On my second trip through fourth grade, I saw movies on how children were conceived and more physical nausea.

During those years of government-mandated public education, I learned the words of Jefferson: “Liberty … is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” The limits drawn by tyrants are violating the rights of individuals, and the noose cinching our growth originates in the twisted minds of those claiming equality for sexual perversion and mental illness.

Tell me, have you researched the psychiatric book on mental illness? Several sections are devoted to the mental illnesses of sexual disorders and the mental health of people who create problems because they refuse to be bound by limits in sexual appetites. The consequences of sexual perversion create mental health disorders. Please, do not blindly believe me; look up the DSM 5. The DSM-5 officially is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR) released on March 18, 2022, by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The DSM is a reference handbook that most U.S. mental health professionals use to reach an accurate diagnosis, and the latest version of the manual is the DSM-5-TR. Plato 2

While there are always discussions on the applicability and use of the DSM, this is the reference for lawyers, mental health professionals, and medical doctors in dealing with mental health cases. The information in the DSM-5-TR remains the standard upon which diagnoses and treatment of mental health patients rest. A basic level of reading comprehension leaves the reader with a firm grasp of the obvious, sexual appetites and passions have consequences, and those consequences lead to poor mental health, including depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, physical, sexual, and mental abuse of others, and a host of social problems and legal issues.

Yet, instead of addressing the problem and suggesting more control of personal appetites, the reverse is preached by media, politicians, doctors, and other key societal groups. Leading us back to Jefferson’s claim that “law is often the tyrant’s will” as a weapon to violate the rights of individuals. Another glimpse into the mind of President Jefferson shows us the following pattern. “Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath [shown], that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . . [emphasis mine].”

Slow operations are perverting government into tyranny; where have we seen this more apparent than in the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal, state, county, and city/town government on education in publicly funded schools? Under the guise of the twisted and plastic term progress, the ability to read was curtailed by Dewey, and education was bureaucratized slowly into the mess it has become. Math and history are weaponized into topics hated and despised, so the student knows nothing of their country’s rich heritage and history. The popularization of topics has seen the rise of perversion in a bold attempt to groom children for the sexual appetites and passions of adults who deserve public shaming. Instead, those with morals and ethics are denounced and shunned.

Let me be clear and concise, using President Jefferson to help, “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and [personal liberty] is given him by the author of nature because [it is] necessary for his own sustenance.” How you choose is your business, provided it does not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others to pursue life, exercise liberty, and choose happiness. However, what is occurring right now remains in direct violation of personal liberty, and these purveyors of sexual perversion must cease and desist immediately!

You do not have the right to twist the minds of children! You are not the parents, and your job does not give you the authority to interfere in parental rights! The power of government is not an acceptable excuse to steal innocence, groom minds, or pervert those not interested in your lifestyle choices! How you choose to exercise your liberty is between you and the author of that liberty. When you go forth exercising your liberty and try to steal rights and liberties from others, you are the problem. You deserve social castigation, denunciation, and the harshest penalties of the legal system.

Patriotism You have no claims upon my personal liberty, and I want my rights back!

© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Woman!

The majority of this article was drafted before the controversy with the SCOTUS nominee. The intent is to honor the role of women and woman. Affirming again that how you choose to live is your business and is between you and whatever god, God, or gods you worship. Provided you allow others the same rights to life, liberty, and pursue happiness, I do not care how you choose to live.

How you choose to live should not denigrate anyone, let alone biologically living males and females, men and women. Leading this discussion to answer the simple question posed by US Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) to SCOTUS nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, “What is a woman?” Again, affirming the role and embodiment of a woman is more than the sum of her sexual parts; the question does have merit and deserves answered. What is a woman?

The Bible relates that all creation occurred in six days; on the sixth day, the woman was created as the supreme creation of God, and then God rested on the seventh day. Not here to argue religion, but to herald that final glorious act of creation, the woman. How grateful I am for the women in my life. Various scriptures relate that woman was created so man would not be alone, so a helpmeet was found for Adam, and the woman would be equal to the man in all things. An interesting dichotomy was found in creating the woman: Adam was created of the dust, but the woman was created from Adam’s side. According to biblical accounts, no other female in the species created replicated this pattern. Clearly, there is a lesson for us to understand, acknowledge, and support socially through laws and societal norms.

What a unique creation the woman is. Paradoxical in all things, a woman is soft and strong, inflexible and flexile, independent, and a great team member. What family is complete without a woman and a man? One of the great truths in life is that man and woman were created separate and dependent, and gender is an eternal construct. Each person is born male and female, with their creator’s traits, personalities, and intelligence. Yet what do we see in all modern societies; the continued blurring of lines, roles, and dehumanization of the grandeur of man and woman, but of the two woman, has been taking the worst hits.

Consider fashion; since the feminist movement began, fashion for women has warped and destroyed the modesty, chastity, and glory of a woman. Fashionistas are trying to make the woman into a young boy at best. Always to be “fashionable,” the woman is made to squeeze, pinch, and be uncomfortable. Women’s shoes are a contortion and torture exercise, a balancing act sacrificing function and comfort for some twisted idea of style. Long have I looked upon the inequality in fashion between men and women and been abhorred, disgusted, and discomfited by the base and profane ideas accepted as “stylish” and “fashionable.” Women, why do you allow yourself and your high and holy station to be demeaned in the name of “fashion?”

Consider make-up and all the chemicals a woman is “supposed” to use to “improve” her beauty. The emoluments alone are sufficient to baffle and bewilder, then add the smells and paints, and the woman is taught from day one that being natural is insufficient to being attractive or whole. Yet, I know differently, for I have seen strong and powerful women who never touch these things and remain effective, regnant, and influential. Tell me honestly, what you put on your face, to make up, what value is there in this process? Who told you you needed these chemicals to be a woman?

Human biology, and I would presume all biological sciences, defines a female as having two X chromosomes, whereas males have an X and a Y chromosome. I passed biology with high marks but failed zoology as I did not attend enough to be scored. If there is a biologist who would like to weigh in, please feel free to correct me. The developing fetus develops as either a male or female as growth occurs in the germinal, embryonic, and fetal stages of life. The physical characteristics separating males and females are coded into a person’s DNA, and fourth-grade science was apparent on these topics.

Psychology in recent years has declared that a person’s choices can change the gender of a person, but the sex of a person remains coded genetically. Thus, woman, as a biologically separate class of animals, have different bone structures, hair, glands, skin, hormones, etc., coded from birth, regardless of how that person chooses how to live. Please allow me to make a strong point, a woman, and for that matter, a man, are more than the sum of their sexual parts. If this were not true, then those men having sexual reassignment surgery to obtain female genitalia would automatically adopt all the characteristics of a woman upon the conclusion of surgery. Estrogen and testosterone, hormones, and chemicals would not need to be supplemented, and the mental processes separating a man and a woman would not need to be fought so assiduously by those having their sex surgically or chemically altered. Again, supporting the fact that it is psychology and not biology, establishing the difference between biological men and women, and the sum of their sexual parts is a non-issue.

On the topic of psychology, look to the results of choosing to live in a manner opposite of birth sex. We discover suicides, depression, anxiety, and a host of other mental diseases prevalent in this population, not witnessed to the same degree in different populations. Why the LGBTQ+ populations have such prevalent and significant occurrences of these mental diseases is a question modern society refuses to research as this has been termed out of bounds as potentially anti-LGBTQ+. Thus, research supports that the populations of those choosing to live life in this manner have these mental problems but refuses to ask why; do you see a problematic situation? All this while attacking the role, lifestyles, and position of woman.

Under the role of woman, there is a title worthy of acknowledgment, and the title is lady. Like gender, being a lady is a choice, a lifestyle, and contains social obligations, societal expectations, and requires significant effort on the part of the woman to obtain the title lady. For example, Nancy Reagan was a lady, Hilary Clinton is merely a woman. What separates these two women is class, respect, dignity, and more, not politics, not personality, and definitely not lifestyles and social circles. Being a lady requires sacrifice, making choices over long periods of time, and it demands total commitment to achieve. Females become women through growth, females become ladies by choice and sacrifice, and are granted this title by others.

In attempting to make this distinction clearer, allow me to draw a more specific example between women and ladies. Gretchen Wilson sings a song, “Redneck Woman.” The song lists qualities of a woman, specifically a class of woman “Redneck women.” No aspersions cast, no denigration, and no offense offered. Frankly, I have deep respect for several redneck women. I am also proud to know and respect a lot of women who ride horses as cowgirls and rodeo stars, some really kick butt women from the US Military, and more. But, a lady is phenomenally different by choice, and this is the point.

Great ladies of history include amongst their ranks Katherine Hepburn, Doris Day, Nancy Reagan, Barbara “The Silver Fox” Bush, Abagail Adams, Mary Todd Lincoln, Mother Theresa, Queen Elizabeth II, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah and Esther of Old Testament fame, Mary of New Testament fame, these and more are ladies. First and foremost, these females are women, strong and independent, then they choose to become ladies and are honored more than mere women or as the sum of their sexual parts. Women honored, revered, and respected for their contributions to womanhood, society, and sacrifices, women who practiced gentleness, compassion, respect, and kindness as quintessential aspects of their core identity, not for worldly fame or personal gain. Abraham Lincoln, America’s 16^th President, honored two women as mothers and called both ladies of influence. Yet, Disney would have us believe that all stepmothers are horrible creatures. A vast chasm exists between women and ladies, and this is but one of the separations or classifications between women; by the choices the woman makes, a lady is created.

In trying to make a point about not hitting women, President Biden accidentally created a problem. President Biden remarked that nobody should punch a woman in the face. Distinguishing multiple times in the same speech that hitting a woman in the face, specifically, is not allowed. As a kid, I learned not to hit women at all; even if being attacked by a woman, a man merely defends themselves restraining a woman if necessary, not to cause additional injury to herself or someone else. But, Biden implied that only hitting a woman in the face is problematic; what a detestable creature is the man who would hit a woman! I am not condoning violence in any shape or against any person. For thousands of years and across hundreds of societies, those who would enact violence, society, rightly, has dolled out steeper punishments to those committing violence against women.

Social laws throughout recorded history have always treated women differently. Sometimes in history, this has been to the detriment and unequal treatment of women, and recently in history, treating women as equals to men is a fact that should be cheered and heralded. Yet, along comes transgenderism demanding equal treatment under the law, not as a separate but equal category, but supplanting women, representing more attacks on women and womanhood by conspiring men for personal gain. Don’t believe me; look at the story of the NCAA and the recent swimmer making news and winning championships, and tell me that conspiring men are not attacking the equality of women. A charade of disrespect is cast before us, slandering women and womanhood for some amorphous and ambiguous term for lifestyle choices and not sound science, or respectful dialogue about laws.

I conclude where I began, respecting women, honoring ladies, and decrying the attack on women and womanhood as the demented and twisted attack of conspiring men and women who would see women destroyed upon the altar of political correctness. Ladies, you have my respect, admiration, and sword, for you are deserving. Women, you have my respect for the roles you fill as opposites of men and your work as mothers, teachers, and the co-equal helpmeet of men. May those conspiring to destroy you be found buried in the hole they have dug for your destruction.

Did you Hear? – Let’s Have the FULL Conversation

The following are several stories where the entire conversation is not being held, information is not being disseminated, and the public is left in the dark. In the name of having that whole conversation, let us ask tougher questions and demand better answers! More to the point, I hope these conversations lead to less government control, bureaucratic edict, and bureaucracy fiat.

Medical Mayhem – Socialized Medicine

The Jerusalem Post, 23 June 2021, reports that baby Alta Fixler will be removed from life support. Following her parent’s wishes to send her to a hospital in Jerusalem due to her parent’s Haredi Orthodox Jewish faith. The parents petitioned the hospital to release their child, who has been on life support since birth, to travel to the Jerusalem Hospital. Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) took legal action, and now the child is slated to be removed from life support.

Make no mistake, this type of parental and patient abuse is alive and well in America. The face of socialized medicine is a nameless bureaucrat making decisions, running to a judge, and forcing upon parents that which the parents believe is not in the best interest of their child. If you want to read the heartbreaking story of socialized medicine in America, look no further than the Justina Pelletier case. The only question never answered in the Justina Pelletier case has been where do parental rights end and hospital bureaucrats begin? Never answered, and this legal gray area is where socialized medicine thrives!

Baby Alta Fixler is not the first child to die by government fiat in English hospitals by court order. Justina Pelletier is not the first case of hospitals abusing patients based upon doctor opinions and bureaucracy. The entire conversation needs to be had. Each state in America, each voter in America, needs to decide should a nameless, faceless bureaucrat have life and death control over your loved one, or should the family and parents have that control?

US Government – Censors Iranian Websites and Media Outlets

Reuters, copied on Jerusalem Post, 23 June 2021, reports how the US Government is working to end the social media influence of Iran on America’s political system. A totally dumb move by the Biden Administration to single out just one state actor pulling America around by the social media noose. The story includes Russia, China, and North Korea, all investing in websites specifically designed to tout the party line and sway political interests in America. Yet, the only country singled out for action has been Iran. Thus, the first question is, why? Why is Iran singled out? When will China, North Korea (China’s Hand Puppet), and Russia join the list of censored state actors involved in disinformation?

Now, here is why this is a dumb move; censorship never works! Censor an idea today, and tomorrow it becomes a living and breathing problem. For example, Mark Twain’s incredible story of “Huck Finn.” It was banned in my public library on Monday and Tuesday, the book had a backlog to be checked out, and no copy could be found on any shelf in bookstores. This all occurred before the Internet, eBay, Amazon.com, the bookstores included used bookstores. With technology, the problem has only grown.

Consider LinkedIn; it continues to censor speech it finds personally repugnant or disagrees with politically. Facebook does the same; Twitter, Google, and the list of Big Tech censoring grows. Yet, the ideas they find abhorrent take on a life of their own, continuing to prove that censoring an idea is the worst decision! Worse, in America, a Constitutional Republic (if we can keep it), demands via the First Amendment that censorship of speech is wrong. You do not fight bad information with censorship, you fight bad information with good information, allowing the complete discussion based upon the facts, and you respect the Rule of Law!

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Before we can shake a stick, there will be lawsuits, charities, and news media with identical talking points trying to push back against the government. The ACLU will take the case Pro Bono, and the Judicial Branch will again confirm that free speech cannot be censored, making the government look stupid for censoring speech, increasing traffic to these obscure websites from curiosity doing more harm than good to America. The exact opposite result the government was trying to create by censoring. Let us have the complete discussion, open free speech, do not censor, and for pity sake stop making legal martyrs out of the enemies of America!

Google Israel, Conversion Therapy, and the LGBTQ+ Community

22 June 2021, The Jerusalem Post reports that Google Israel has launched a campaign to fight conversion therapy practices. After canceling an app to aid in conversion therapy, after an outcry from the LGBTQ+ community. Since the fallacious claims of the 1960s that sex is love, and love is free, and equality in sex includes changing genders and pushing the full-on homosexual agenda down the throats of a global audience, the LGBTQ+ community has tried to control the conversation on bedroom choices for everyone. Which in and of itself is a form of censorship.

GLAAD (Gay, Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) reports conversion therapy is defined as “Any attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” Conversion therapists define conversion therapy as, “Conversion therapy is the practice of trying to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.” Frankly, it appears to me that both groups are trying to win hearts and minds through the same tactics, just using different politics and purposes. Here’s the problem, since the LBGTQ+ community continues to use the judicial branch to censor speech, promote their causes, and subjugate laws, the entire conversation is not being had on how people choose to become members of the LGBTQ+ community or if they want to return to heterosexual communities. This lack of diversity in conversation and the withholding of information is censorship, and censorship is wrong!

I repeat myself only for emphasis, “I do not care about your bedroom selections.” Provided you and your partner are legal and consenting adults, there is no reason for me to be interested. Your business is YOUR business, with all the consequences of YOUR choices. I have heard the horror stories of pedophiles grooming young boys to become members of the LGBTQ+ community; I have seen the reports on diseases, physical harm, suicides, rapes, and other problems in this community. But, by not having both sides of the conversation, how can a person be expected to make a logical choice about their identity if half the conversation is depicted as roses and rainbows, and the other half is never discussed at all?

I am not here to tell you how to live your life. Make your choices live with your consequences, the same as every other adult. But, if you are preying on children for homosexual or heterosexual appetite suppression, you are deserving of the full weight of the law! For example, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), fighting to decriminalize pedophilia and pederasty, is closely associated with and receives funding from all types of homosexual and LGBTQ+ community supporters. Yet, what they proclaim and do is groom young boys for homosexual sex. Worse, the K-12 sexual education programs are an outreach of both NAMBLA and GLAAD and have been since the programs were introduced in K-12 schools.

Some online sources claim that these targeting groups for pedophiles are defunct, except I do not believe this, as the fluidity of terminology and the plasticization of words are more common among the LGBTQ+ crowd than among politicians. To date, I have not found a single organized group where women groom young girls into lesbian relationships. I mention these two items because conversion therapy goes both ways, luring into homosexual relationships and luring into heterosexual relationships. I have witnessed women practicing witchcraft introduce lesbian lifestyles to their adherents, and I have witnessed several Wiccan groups preach the same lesbian lifestyles to their supporters. However, I make no judgments or broad aspersions beyond my experience as I do not have enough information on the grooming of women into lesbian lifestyles.

However, the fact remains that the LGBTQ+ community is controlling the conversation. The volume of disinformation in the LGBTQ+ communities is based on a lot of fear and twisted science, and by preventing the whole discussion from occurring, censorship is hurting people. All I am asking for is the disinformation and censorship to cease. If you believe your cause is correct, allow the complete discussion to occur, discuss the pros and cons openly, detail the consequences and potential harm. We already do this, by forced mandate, for heterosexual relationships; what is there to hide in the homosexual relationships that command all this hatred for telling both sides of the homosexual story? You, the LGBTQ+ community started this conversation, so let’s have a full and honest discussion.

You, as an adult, consenting, can do what you please. I merely ask that you stop interfering in the transfer of information so young people can have all the facts. Before they jump into a relationship that can physically, mentally, and emotionally scar them for life, be that relationship hetero or homosexual. End the censorship!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Diversity, Equality, Inclusion, and Assimilation

Public Service Announcement: The following article is probably longer than desired. However, I am trying to cover a lot of basics where tyrants have invaded and are attempting to gain control.

Let me be perfectly clear; I do not care what you look like, your handicaps, abilities, or disabilities, or frankly, anything other than how you do your job and live your life to not interfere with other people’s freedom. Hence, when the discussion inevitably turns to diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, I fully believe that you are the number one driver of equality and inclusion in the workplace and society. You choose to become offended if you feel not included at work. You decide to feel marginalized, and in choosing to feel marginalized, your choices and consequences are solely yours. Except, you demand your consequences be the problem of the business and community. That behavior is childish, selfish, and reveals your ignorance!

Does discrimination occur, absolutely; but discrimination does not disappear magically when a diversity, equality, and inclusion workplace initiative is launched! Discrimination does not disappear because someone passed a law. Your attitude, actions, and decisions are all choices you make that come with natural consequences for you. You drive your ability to be included the majority of the time. Individual choice and consequence are the reality never spoken of during DEI initiatives. Failure to include personal choice, assimilation, and consequence remains a glaring hole in DEI training topics.

Assimilation

Assimilation is the act of assimilating, and assimilating is all about taking in and understanding something fully. The Borg from Star Trek gave assimilation a bad name. Worse, some people erroneously proclaim that when you assimilate, you give up pieces of yourself. Assimilation is all about taking the best of you, adding to the best of us, and making the whole stronger than the individual parts. Yet, every DEI training I have been forced to attend has been pessimistic about assimilation and assimilating into a stronger whole. Assimilating is also about absorbing and integrating into a wider society or culture.

For example, a balanced diet includes non-favorite foods, but those foods are good for you. Your body assimilates the good and the bad foods consumed, eat enough poor nutritional foods, and the body suffers physical and mental health problems. Eat too many good foods, and your body will assimilate foods differently and possibly begin to reject certain foods. Hence, balance is needed to properly diet and strengthen the body. Extremes in food, like attitudes, are bad for the body as a whole. The same choice and consequence cycles that drive the assimilation of foods into the body are the same choices and consequences when applied to workplace assimilation into existing cultures. Extremes are hazardous to health!

Diversity

Diversity is all about variety and including variety in a social environment. Diversity has been stretched to become a practice of including people of various backgrounds, ethnicities, and other societies into a greater community. The problem with the plastic second definition of diversity is the assumption that a variety of different people are automatically not wanted or desired in the social environment currently. History has never been kind to different people in a society. This is true of ethnicities, cultures, disabilities, and abilities, and nothing will change discrimination in any organization made up of human individuals.

A friend invited me to a bar; I was not accepted into that bar’s culture as I am a veteran and do not share other lifestyle choices of the bar’s dominant culture. Discrimination happens; if you choose to become offended by the selection of diversity in a community, that is your problem. I did not become offended at the other patrons in a bar and demand that they accept me, it did not matter to me one way or the other if I was accepted or not, and this should be the same stance everyone should be taking!

Equality

Of all the terms we are discussing, equality is by far the most plasticized, twisted, deformed, and dangerously laden with unnecessary baggage! Equality is all about a state of being equal. Equality comes from the “Rule of Law” and the application of “The Rule of Law” for all in society. Except, equality is not what is desired in the term equality when speaking of DEI, but “Social Equality.”

Social equality is a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in certain respects, including civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights, and equal access to certain social goods and services. Essentially, social equality is all about twisting “The Rule of Law” into exceptions for specific socially acceptable groups; instead of equality, social equality is all about bringing all onto unequal grounds before the law. There is no equality in social equality, ever!

Inclusion and Discrimination

Inclusion is all about the practice of being included. That’s it, the whole enchilada; inclusion is all about being included. However, what does it mean to be included; here is where ideas like fit, temperament, desire, and choice and consequences enter a social group, community, or organization. Where DEI is concerned, inclusion is all about shifting the margins, dropping the individual decisions, and forcing all to be lumped together regardless of personal desire. Worse, inclusion is forced with the power of law without regard; hence all are injured in an attempt to be “socially inclusive.”

Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. Except, discrimination happens all the time, and efforts to be more “inclusive” have done nothing to reduce discrimination. I was hired for an inside sales position with a 90-day trial period. My wife dropped off some equipment I had left at home one day. The bosses learned my wife is older than I am; from that day to the end of my trial, when I was released without cause, the attitude towards me was significantly and tangibly different. Skin color, ethnicity, gender choice, sexual bedroom choices, and every other possible thing can be the source of discrimination, and nothing will change this facet of human behavior.

Admitting that discrimination is happening is not being defeatist, nor am I suggesting that discrimination laws should be scrapped. I am relating a truth about human behavior and why the law cannot dictate moral behaviors! Demanding inclusion does nothing to reach the core roots of the problems with discrimination in society. Which is another truth for certain that must be recognized and discussed.

Exclusion

Exclusion is the opposite of inclusion but also represents a risk. The risk of exclusion is found in the legal arguments from discrimination, not the risk of being omitted. More, exclusion has stricter requirements than elements of inclusion ever will. For example, insurance policies have specific criteria that exclude coverage as a means for controlling risk. The same thinking on insurance policies is the same as what occurs in social environments when a person is actively excluded.

For example, in the US Army, my platoon sergeant and my squad leader had a group of people they were comfortable with both on and off duty. I was not welcome because I hit more of the exclusion criteria than the inclusion criteria. I did not enjoy sports, wasn’t a drinker, a womanizer, and several other items. Off duty, this wasn’t that big of a deal. On duty, this exclusion caused me tremendous problems as I learned to be a soldier. Still, the choices for inclusion or exclusion came down to preference and accountability. As the First Sergeant and the Commanding Officer allowed these discriminatory practices to exist, I had no right to complain, and my mistakes were my own. It was a difficult period in my life, but I survived and was stronger for the challenge.

Individual Identity

Who are you? What makes you an individual identity in a socially expanding group? The United Nations has declared your culture, gender, sexual preferences, and race are all personal choices as part of a unique identity created, changed, and designed for and by the person making the choices. What the UN fails to mention are the consequences.

In the US Navy, I served with a woman who was as white as the freshly driven snow, but she identified as black. According to the United Nations, this is acceptable. This sailor spoke, acted, and identified culturally as black even though she was white, blonde hair, blue-eyed, and the antithesis of cultural black identifying characteristics. I am not one to judge and, frankly, could have cared less how she identified herself. But the command through a total fit when she showed up to morning quarters with dredlocks.

Remember, your identity is your choice. I care less about your identity than I do about a fly. How you work, what you do, and your respect for others’ rights matters to me. But, do not make your choices to be an individual affect my life. Do not thrust your identity into my world and demand respect; I do not care about your identity!

Group Identity

Group identity is the melding and assimilation of identities and behaviors needed to work together effectively. That’s it; the whole casserole! Take any sports team, any sport, and you will find the same in winners and losers, those who choose to assimilate the group identity gain success. Those who refuse to assimilate will lose every time. Pick a sports movie; here are a couple of suggestions where you will see for yourself the truth of the power in assimilation:

- - - We Are Marshall
    - Friday Night Lights
    - Glory Road
    - Hoosiers
    - Invincible
    - Miracle
    - Radio

Group identity requires sacrificing individual identity for a cause bigger than oneself. Yet, for DEI training, when is this ever discussed? Winning business organizations cannot be successful without individuals sacrificing their individual identity for group success. How have we forgotten this rule of nature?

Subordinate Culture

Subordinate cultures, micro-networks, ol’ boys network, whatever you call it, subordinate cultures are designed around those who refuse to assimilate and make their choices the problems of managers and leaders. Consider those who hyphenate their cultures, Indian-American, Russio-Chinese, Irish-Israeli, etc. You will find someone who refuses to assimilate and cannot understand the need to be whole culturally and who could be more without the hyphen.

In the US Navy, I met more than ten first-generation Americans from Jamaica, Africa, Cuba, Brazil, Puerto-Rico, and other places. Not a single one of them would consider hyphenating their status as American. Yet, too often, people who have been in America for multiple generations feel a need to hyphenate to identify themselves. Why establish a subordinate culture? A subordinate culture is assumed to be lower in status than a dominant culture. The subordinate culture is treated of lesser importance, deemed under the control of something else, and all because of the hyphenation. Is being subordinate desired; if so, why?

Dominant Culture

The dominant culture is the most powerful or influential culture in an organization. Essentially, more people assimilated and sacrificed for the success that the organization is enjoying than refused. Yet, in DEI training, dominant culture carries negative baggage and is not allowed as it could be misunderstood. Seriously, the concept peddled in this training blew my mind. What happens if the LGBTQ+ community became the dominant culture in a country; would it be accused of the same claptrap the LGBTQ+ community currently claims they suffer?

Why did Rome fail; they lost the “Rule of Law,” and the subordinate cultures took power and could not unify the majority of people when invaders came. One of the greatest Republics in the history of man is responsible for improving millions of people’s lives. Failed and fell an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle over the same issues every single business and democratic country in the world is facing right now.

Individual Choice

I was part of a first-day introduction activity for new hires (2016), and one of the new hires made an individual choice to identify themselves in the following manner, “I am John Smith, I am non-binary queer with a passion for anal sex.” What does this have to do with the position they were hired to fill? Which audience member in a professional setting needed or wanted this information? The declaration automatically put the entire audience on the defensive; the Human Resources representative was placed into a difficult position and called a 10-minute break to regain composure and finish the introductions.

How you choose is your business! I will respect your ability to choose as you desire; keep your choices to yourself, as I will keep my preferences to myself. Believe it or not, we can work together really well without disclosing our personal choices and lifestyles outside of employment. But, when you make your preferences my problem, I will deal with them the same as I deal with that pesky fly, ignore!

Consequences

Self-awareness, curiosity, and empathy are what I was told today that will make DEI work, and through learning and unlearning, DEI can make an organization stronger. I agree the learning is vital, curiosity is always a valuable tool, self-awareness is important, but empathy is dangerous, divisive, and deadly! Failure to recognize the need for assimilation and sacrifice places the burden onto people who have enough on their plate with their responsibilities in their work.

Imperative to the improvement and liberation of thought and the power of people is the eradication of litigated moral behavior. We, the individuals who make up our communities and businesses, must recognize the 800# gorilla in the room, mandating inclusion, refusing assimilation, denying the need to sacrifice individual identity for group success; these must be enshrined into our cultures, again! Let us embrace these truths and design our “Liberty FIRST Cultures” around a single “Rule of Law,” where people are respected and freedom blossoms!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: “Which Way Are You Going?”

Difficult Times Jim Croce is responsible for the title of this article; he sings a song by the same name, with the following lyrics:

Which way are you goin’?
Which side will you be on?
Will you stand and watch while
All the seeds of hate are sown?
Will you stand with those who say
Let his will be done?

One hand on the bible
One hand on the gun
One hand on the bible
One hand on the gun

Which way are you looking?
Is it hard to see?
Do you say what’s wrong for him
Is not wrong for me?
You walk the streets, righteousness
But you refuse to understand

You say, you love the baby
Then you crucify the man
You say, you love the baby
Then you crucify the man

Every day, things are changing
Words once honored turned to lies
People wondering, can you blame them
It’s too far to run, and too late to hide
Now you turn your back on
All the things that you used to preach

Now it’s let him live in freedom
If he lives like me
Well, your light has changed, confusion reigns
What have you become?

All your olive branches turned to spears
When your flowers turned to guns
Your olive branches turned to spears
When your flowers turned to guns

My parents are hippies; that is the simplest way to describe them. A lesson learned from my youth is the essence of this song from Jim Croce; we all have to make a choice. One of my parent’s favorite sayings, “You made your bed, now lie in it.” Meaning, I made choices, and the consequences are now mine to enjoy or suffer depending upon how I choose to evaluate the consequences.

Detective 4 For example, on my birthday in sixth grade, a school bully pushed me into the mud and called it my birthday present. I was holding a math book and a borrowed clipboard; the mud ruined my book and clipboard. I stood up and made a choice; in my right hand were the clipboard and book were used as a balance to swing stronger with my left and began beating the tar out of the bully. I earned a seven-day vacation from school for fighting; the bully got a three-day vacation for pushing me, a bruised cheek, two black eyes, and a really fat lip. All of which were still healing when I returned to school.

To this day, I do not regret beating that bully. I had spent a year being bullied and was done. No, I am not proud of the beating I gave him, but I was done being pushed at that exact moment. I made a choice, and life has been significantly different ever since.

That is the point, the point we each need to understand and accept. Carefully consider the words of the song above. We each have a choice to make. In making that choice, we have natural consequences, and how we evaluate those consequences determines our destiny. Hence, which way are [we] going?

Patriotism We have a fraudulent president, a congress that refuses to listen to the American people; we have legislatures, governors, mayors, and so much more working against the citizenry for political power and personal gain. Well, America, which way are you going? Will we step up and resist, or will we sit and lose?

Will we choose to see and understand the truth of this stanza:
Every day, things are changing
Words once honored turned to lies
People wondering, can you blame them
No, I cannot blame people for wondering, the world has been turned on its ear things are changing, words are being turned into lies, and the worst thing about it, is too few are willing to choose to see and not decide to do, and in failing to choose, they are choosing and the consequences are dire.

Grit - Defined Do you understand the complex truth hidden in this stanza?
Now it’s let him live in freedom
If he lives like me
Well, your light has changed, confusion reigns
What have you become?
If a person chooses to allow the COVID vaccine, like a lab rat, we can now live in a “new freedom.” But, in choosing that path, confusion reigns, freedom is lost, and the American light is shadowed. What has America become? Why did we allow freedom to be lost?

The Duty of Americans Hold one; why not shift the paradigm and change the questions?
Which way are you goin’?
Which side will you be on?
Will you stand and watch while
All the seeds of hate are sown?
Will you stand with those who say
Let his will be done?
Whose “will be done?” The enemies of freedom and liberty or someone else? I am not speaking theologically, philosophically, or metaphysically; I am speaking as a person who is observing, desiring a new set of consequences, and knowing that a different set of choices is required to make a change.

Therein is the problem, how does an entire population become motivated to make different decisions? It is not just marketing at this moment in time; we must lose the political divisions and other divisive elements that have been falsely employed to create divisions and sow chaos. I am talking about making a new conscious choice, logically deciding what we want, need, and desire. The question spreads the spectrum from politics and government to media and food consumption and employment and shopping.

Theres more I am done with both the Republicans and the Democrats; neither party is aware nor even listening to the citizens. The extreme elements in the Democratic Party, the environmentalists, the LGBTQ+ community, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, etc., all have made their choices and must live with the consequences. However, this does not mean the rest of the country has to take the same path to death and destruction.

The Republicans have chosen to act without spine, reason, or even cohesion in thinking and doing. Yet too often, all the political choices come down to Republican or Democrat, and there is less and less difference between them from day to day. Why have we settled for just two political parties in America? America has been through changes in the dominant political parties before, and we must do so again for the good of the Republic. We, the citizens, must force a change by refusing the Kool-Aid, refusing the political madness, and refusing to lose the Republic. Which way are you going?

Non Sequitur - Decisions Which way are you going? How will you choose to move forward? Do you realize that your emotions are your own choice? That by taking control over your emotions, you become empowered to choose more powerfully and more logically. The media, the politicians, and the bureaucrats all want to control your emotions, and they want you to be controlled by the marketing hype, the big pharma, big-tech, and big-box retail. Do you realize that your privacy is invaded 24/7 by people tracking the products you buy, the websites you visit, and so many other methods and means, including your cellphone? Why did we give up our privacy?

Which way are we going to choose? As each of us makes an individual decision, our country will begin to change. I offer the first choice, choose a “Liberty FIRST Culture!”

NO MORE BS: Masculinity is NOT Toxic

Theres more Usually, when the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) sends me an email, I can understand where the authors are coming from and generally accept what is being discussed. I might disagree, I might not like the topic, but I can usually understand the premise and then move forward. Not today!

Holly Althof, writing for SHRM, discusses “How Toxic Masculinity is Ruining Your Workplace Culture: When Leaders Fail to See How Toxic Masculinity Influences Their Teams’ Dynamics, The Whole Organization Will Fail.” Here’s the rub, the behaviors discussed as “toxic masculinity” are just rude, boorish, and downright abysmal behavior and are behaviors that arise in all genders. “Men talking over women,” women talking over men, LGBTQ+ talking over everyone, non-gender militancy in the workplace; all of these behaviors are detestable, but only men are accused of being toxic to the workplace. Wrong!

Frank & Ernest - Government and Women Men are not the offenders, or rather they are not the only offenders of toxic communication practices in the workplace. I worked in one toxic call center where a member of the LGBTQ+ community was actively sexually harassing the males on his team. The leadership refused to believe that any member of the LGBTQ+ community could act in this manner, refused to believe that the higher number of men on his team were leaving due to sexual harassment, and denied any culpability when these men demanded the supervisor/team leader be stopped. Worse, this person has retained his position and continued to act in a hostile, toxic, and sexually aggressive manner to the men on his teams.

I have written about the boorish and inexcusable behavior of a female lead who physically attacked me, actively harassed me, and discriminated against me in Federal Employment, how she was promoted and awarded for her leadership, and how she continued to make my life hell, even after I ended that work relationship. This specific incident was fed and made worse by disinformation received by the assistant director and director of the VA Hospital administration we both worked for. Abhorrent and boorish behavior comes from every gender, and it is past time for authors to recognize and admit the truth; men are not the only perpetrators of bad behavior in the workplace. Men are simply a usual and easy target for authors, an action and misnomer that must cease!

What is Toxic Masculinity?

Dr. Timothy J. Legg provides an excellent example of both toxic masculinity and covers the ever-evolving process to define and categorize behaviors considered as toxic masculinity. The current, definitive definition of toxic masculinity is “the constellation of socially regressive [masculine] traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence.” However, what eludes Dr. Legg, and Althof is that these are just normal behaviors found in all people, not only men! Want examples from Dr. Legg of what is considered “Toxic Masculinity:”

- - strength
  - lack of emotion
  - self-sufficiency
  - dominance
  - sexual virility
  - aggression
  - sexual aggression or control
  - showing no emotion or suppressing emotions
  - hyper-competitiveness
  - needing to dominate or control others
  - a tendency towards or glorification of violence
  - isolation
  - low empathy
  - entitlement
  - chauvinism and sexism

B.C. - I thought this was funny Seriously?!?! Having served in the US Army and US Navy, and having traveled ¾’s of the way around the world, I can claim for certain, with lots of examples to support the conclusion, that all people can take any one or all of those examples of “Toxic Masculinity” and turn the culture of a small team or large organization on their ear! I have seen women, strong and independent, smart, intelligent, but with an ax to grind, destroy units, and have to be restrained. I have witnessed enough militant LGBTQ+ members and non-militant LGBTQ+ members wreak havoc on organizations, taking advantage of people’s fear and making the workplace harmful and toxic. Yes, some men do the same stupid and boorish behaviors; but this is no excuse to single out just men for “Toxic Masculinity.”

What makes no sense, the term “Toxic Masculinity” was created by a men’s group in the 1980s to describe attributes that made a man a man and were refused by society as positive and acceptable. Now the tyrants of modular language have plasticized the term into any action a male person does that is not the precise response desired by another gender. Phrases like “Man-Up” are considered ridiculous and generate aggression, whereas the term “Woman Up” is seen as liberating and positive expressions of women’s power. Uwe Poerksen remains correct; when words lose their definitions, terms are plasticized, tyrants of thought police abound, and logic is lost for emotional hyperbole.

Detective 4 While Althof attempts to claim toxic masculinity is not a “campaign against men,” the entire article is written from the position that men are the only offenders. Men are the problems, and men are the only ones who show masculinity in the workplace. I contracted with an organization, a well-known brand, whose CEO was female, most of the board was female at the time, and the organization honestly strove to be a diverse and welcoming culture. But, critics still called the organization a patriarchal system designed to keep men on top. Seriously, this was the main complaint against this organization, proving that since you cannot please everyone, stop trying to please anyone!

Before you go ballistic over that last comment, please allow me to explain. I sincerely believe that one of the most damaging behaviors seen in today’s workplaces is a desire to please everyone. You see this in diversity and inclusion discussions. You see this in men being marginalized; it is apparent in so many conversations and behaviors that castigated men have become part of the organizational design at a lot of well-known branded companies. Business requires returning a profit to the stakeholders and shareholders. Being actively hostile to 50% of the binary gender populations is not conducive to producing a profit, nor does it make any sense. Hence, since you cannot please everyone, stop trying to please anyone. Working together towards a common goal, sacrificing personal opinions for a greater effort by a team is referred to as professionalism, and men and women are very good at getting along and making things work.

Reading Men and women are different; this is acceptable, enjoyable, and makes the world better. Men and women approach situations from differing angles, and this is also acceptable, enjoyable, and makes the world better. Trying to force men and women to approach situations from the same perception will only breed hostility, and blaming men for the problems is frankly inexcusable. The answer is not found in more inclusion and diversity conversations; the answer is found in allowing working together to occur more naturally. Is this concept clear?

Forcing men to refuse masculinity places the burdens of socially working together solely upon men, which is unfair and blatantly false. Forcing women to restrict their feminity destroys the potential for better solutions while muzzling female creativity and ingenuity, which is also patently false. Both binary genders need to express openly, without fear of tyrants belittling them for being different in their approaches and methods of finding solutions; this is the conversation we need to be having in the workplace, not “Toxic Masculinity!”

Look Finally, if you choose to be a member of the non-binary genders, for whatever reason, this is your choice. Nothing here implies that you do not have a choice or cannot be part of the solutions. Make your gender choice, enjoy your gender choice, and may the consequences of that choice be acceptable to you. There is no judgment and no criticisms implied or otherwise; if you choose to take offense, that also is your choice and consequence.

NO MORE BS: – Let us Open a Dialogue – The Gender Choices

The elected clowns have filled my email inbox with all sorts of marketing emails regarding “The Equality Act.” The Equality Act remedies these disparities by amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, education, housing, credit, jury service, public accommodations, and federal funding. The following are not examples of closed-mindedness, nor am I passing judgment; honest questions, attempting to understand a social issue that makes no sense to me personally, creating too much emotional hyperbole in society.

Why do we need the “Equality Act?”

The US Constitution claims all men are created equal; America has had to amend to include women in this claim because of bigots stuck in the fourth century AD. But, there are sufficient laws on the books covering the need to treat everyone regardless of sex, religion, handicap, etc., equally. Why do we specifically need a law to cover personal bedroom and gender choices that should never be discussed anyway? I do not care about your gender choices, nor do I want to hear about your bedroom activities, homo- or heterosexual choices. These are your choices, the consequences are yours to enjoy, and frankly, I could care less. Just keep your preferences private and leave me out of your choices. If you already have equality under the law as written in the US Constitution and other existing laws, why are we creating new laws?

Respect for self and modesty in public – What happened?

Modesty The one relationship I have had where I did not respect my partner to keep my bedroom choices in my bedroom and not in public, I have regretted it, and apologies never made right my loss of control. I learned harsh lessons about respect and caring about the other person; more, I learned about respecting society to allow social behavior to not interfere with my partner and me.

Remember Modesty in public is more than hemlines, it is an attitude of respect for others, and it is a desire to not inflict upon another that which they do not want to witness. Yet, every day, a person is assaulted in public by behaviors and activities that belong at home, or more specifically in a bedroom. Since the LGBTQ+ crowd seems to have lost their minds the most with respect for their partner/s and the public square, I must ask, why do you disrespect yourselves and your partner/s so much as to take your bedroom into public? Not letting the heterosexual crowd off the hook, the last couple of movie theaters visited had severe problems with respect and modesty in public.

When I asked why they could not control themselves, I was told not to watch. As the couple engaging was sitting directly in front of me, it was hard to miss the spectacle. I went to see a G-rated animated movie and was forced to watch the film with XXX-rated material provided by the couple. It is not enjoyable, not acceptable, and not respectful for either the couple or the other theatergoers or the public in general. Yet, the behavior in the last “Gay Pride Parade” was exponentially worse, and I could not watch the news, go in public, or go anywhere without being assaulted by the images of disrespect and the shunning of modesty for the public spectacles of bad decisions and poor behavior.

moral-values Thus, I ask, what happened to respect for oneself, their partner, and the public in presenting modest behavior in public and controlling one’s behavior until they returned home? What happened to respect for the public square and standards for conduct in public? It is not too much to ask a person to control themselves and respect their partner/s in public!

Elected Officials – Are all the other issues in America Resolved?

Do we have a balanced budget, making payments on the debt, and resolving all other issues that made passing the “Equality Act” of paramount importance? You waste my time and yours by focusing upon the minutia when the 800#-Gorilla of debt and financial instability remains a glaring problem. The COVID crisis created by government hyperventilating remains a time-sensitive issue; did I miss the memo where this had been resolved, and people can return to business as usual? What about illegal immigration? Has the southern wall been built, old laws culled, and the problem resolved so American’s can go back to work in America, the welfare rolls reduced of illegal-aliens, and security can be found in American cities?

Theres more Why was the “Equality Act” fast-tracked into Congressional business when so many other issues remain outstanding? You, the elected representatives in the legislative branch, have two jobs, write common-sense laws that help everyone, and scrutinize the government. How is that scrutinization of government going? Have all the problems with out-of-control bureaucrats been resolved? Can veterans receive respect and dignity from the VA? What about the IRS, are their employees all paying their taxes now? What about all the other government departments? How are they operating? Have all their unfunded liabilities been collected and a plan put into place to pay them off?

Pride – Which definition? Why?

The marketing materials speak of pride in accomplishing the passing of the “Equality Act.” Really?!?!? Pride?!?! What was accomplished? What good is being provided to all Americans? Where is the value of this legislation?

Pride 2 Pride has several definitions, the first being, according to Webster, Noun – “a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.” The second, “consciousness of one’s dignity.” The third, “confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, based on their shared identity, culture, and experience.”

Pride is defined as “being especially proud of (a particular quality or skill)” when used as a verb. In older dictionaries, the definition of pride also included the following, “enmity.” Enmity is defined as “the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.” Feel free to comment, but this definition of pride appears to be more applicable to the “Equality Act” than any other definition. The hostility of the elected representatives towards the American people appears to ooze from every email marketing this “great achievement.” The hostility and active opposition to performing the roles we elected you to fill is glaring and very much not appreciated!

Detective 3 Enmity remains synonymous with pride for a reason. Pride is always competitive in nature, where the person possessing pride claims they are better than everyone else, and all must bow and worship the owner of pride. Well, I have removed my consent to be governed by you! Pride is always short-tempered, unkind, envious, and hostile. Hence, I wonder why you choose to feel pride over passing the “Equality Act.” Did you read the act before voting? How many elected supporters got their palms greased, and their special interests paid for with the public’s money to pass the “Equality Act?”

A “Liberty FIRST Culture” recognizes the sham and will not allow you to continue to abuse the American Public for much longer!

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this: