Friday, May 29, 2015

Obama poised to force faith-based organizations who to consider for employment

When George W. Bush announced his plans for "faith-based initiatives" as a way for religious organizations to assume a greater role in providing social services to those in need, I was instantly worried. While on the surface it sounds great, my gut told me that as soon as we began federally funding faith-based programs, as Bush's program advocated, that such programs would be beholden to government demands. My concerns came to fruition this week.

According to a report published yesterday by the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)The Obama Administration is poised to require faith-based recipients of federal grants to accept applications from LGBT individuals. And, as reported by Breitbart, "By executive order last summer, President Obama amended the Johnson-era federal order on non-discrimination in hiring by federal contractors to include non-discrimination based on “sexual orientation and gender identity.

As a bit of background, the Johnson-era order was amended in 2002 by President George Bush to include a religious exemption so that faith-based groups would not be forced to hire those in opposition to their teachings. It is unclear whether grant recipients have similar protections. And even those protections are under assault by those who want all such exemptions ended.

According to C-Fam, federal agencies are now being pressured to make this change without a subsequent executive order and that the State Department legal office is telling the White House that this is not a legal matter but a matter of policy.

But what this really reveals is a cultural coup, exposing how much Constitutional government was driven away a long time ago and replaced with a totalitarian monstrosity that has simply waited for the right moment to reveal itself. 

Most of us are well aware of the extreme actions taken by Barack Obama through executive orders, but in this case he doesn’t even need his pen and phone to overturn the culture. It is 'not a legal matter but a matter of policy.' Federal money is federal power and there are no limits on it. Faith-based groups will need to throw out the faith or choose to wither and die.

Even if we get a better President who stops this garbage, Barack Obama has now set precedents that the next Liberal secularist in power (whether Republican or Democrat) will want to uphold, restore, and build upon."

Does anyone see any good coming out of any of this?


Monday, May 25, 2015

God bless our veterans today and always

I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Memorial Day and to thank all our soldiers - those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and those who serve us to this day. If not for them, we wouldn't have the freedoms we've been given. And with that said, let's help our military men and women by remaining vigilant about the forces threatening to take our freedoms away. Through our own complacence inroads can be made to disintegrate the very fiber of what makes our country great. Be ever aware and stand up for what's right. Let's not allow the sacrifices made by our soldiers to ever be in vain, and let's never forget what they've done for us.

God bless all our veterans, and God bless America.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Catholic University investigated for "too many crosses" - offensive to Muslims

Catholic University in Washington D.C. is being investigated for offending Muslims because there are too many crosses on campus.
This situation might be rather humorous if it wasn’t foretelling of things to come. American life, culture, and the very foundation of both our government and the governments of the West are being shaken by the threat Islam poses to future generations.
A sixty-page complaint was filed in the D.C. Human Rights office by a professor from George Washington University Law School. Professor John Banzhaf alleges the “excessive” amount of “Catholic imagery” at the school are offensive creating a hostile environment for Muslim students to pray.
Banzhaf, who already has a pending lawsuit against the university over ending its policy of allowing mixed-gender dormitories and has a history of filing civil rights suits on such topics as childhood obesity and smoking, filed the complaint alleging that Muslim students are not given their own prayer rooms.

He alleges that the university, “does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion.”

Although, no complaints have been filed from any of the University’s Muslim students and no legal filing has been made, a spokesman for the human rights office said they’re looking into Banzhaf’s complaint.

Overall what this means is that Christian institutions across America are under siege by the left, using Muslims and their beliefs as a tool to undermine the framework of these organizations, as well as the bedrock of America. And if Christian institutions think it’s bad now, wait to see what happens should the Supreme Court lift the ban on same-sex “marriage.”

By undermining Christians, leftist activists are undermining freedom for all people no matter their race, creed or religion. After all, the omission of Christ and Christians are essential to the creation of an all-powerful totalitarian state.

Let’s hope Catholic University defends the cross and its rights as a Catholic institution.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Michelle Obama's shameful tantrum on racism

Remember the days when graduation commencement speeches were supposed to be inspiring, positive, full of hope? Well, not with Michelle Obama. Her life - back in the days when she was ashamed of America - was apparently so difficult that even being the First Lady of the United States is not enough to put the past behind her long enough to provide an example of hope. Instead she felt justified in using her commencement address to graduates at Tuskegee University in Alabama this past weekend to slam America as a hopelessly racist, bigoted, hateful country. What a terrible message to the new graduates at this historically black university. And what an insult to its history.

Founded in 1881 on July 4, the school that shares America's birthday started with a mere thirty adults representing the first class -- which was taught by Dr. Booker T. Washington, also considered one of the school's founders. The school rose to national prominence under the leadership of Washington, who headed the institution from 1881 until his death in 1915. 

Dr. Washington, a highly skilled organizer and fundraiser, was counsel to American Presidents, a strong advocate of black-owned business, and instrumental in the development of educational institutions throughout the South. He championed moral character, personal responsibility, economic opportunity and, as stated, education. Moreover, he understood the vital role that character plays in education, and actually, the vital role of character in achieving success in any worthwhile enterprise. In fact, Dr. Washington's entire life story, rising from great adversity to great achievement, stands in timeless testimony to the power of character for all young Americans today. 

Think of what a remarkable accomplishment this was for a black man to make such inroads to education and independence during a time when our country was barely free from the shackles of slavery. Imagine the obstacles, threats and hostility he faced. Regardless, his focus was on bettering his life and the lives of countless people through education, hard work and inner strength as the keys for achieving a better life. Now that is a message worthy of sharing at any commencement address.

I am in no way dismissing any act of racism that our First Lady or anyone has experienced in their lifetime. All racism is wrong. But using a commencement address to divide people instead of inspiring and encouraging young people is simply beneath anyone, and especially the First Lady of the United states. 

Imagine if Dr. Washington, had he delivered a commencement address to that first graduating class of Tuskegee, driveled on about the hardships of dealing with bigots, as Michelle did on Saturday, rather than focus on how to overcome them. Imagine if he whined about people being suspicious of him at stores, museums and banquets because of the color of his skin, like Michelle did. Instead, Dr. Washington once said, "A whining, crying race may be pitied, but seldom respected." Of Washington and Michelle Obama, which example would do more to inspire graduates on the brink of a new life - the whiner or the pillar of strength? 

Imagine Dr. Washington ranting about the hatred in our country, as Michelle did, rather than focus on what a person can do to overcome such hatred, as Dr. Washington dedicated his life to doing. And rather than dwelling on any hatred spewed toward him or returning that hatred, he once said, "I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him."

Michelle Obama should be ashamed for peddling her own hateful, negative, dispiriting words on the very grounds that were nurtured by a man who devoted his entire life to paving the way so that people like Michelle could one day reside in the White House - living an incredible life of luxury with a staff of 71 people, global, first-class travel, and every whim catered to, all on the taxpayer dime. 

The First Lady should be ashamed for fanning the flames of the racism that prior generations fought so hard to overcome, and often lost their lives to in the process, so that she could inspire in the Tuskegee graduates little more than agitation, anger and suspicion -- rather than pride in their accomplishments and confidence in their future. Shame on her for courting sympathy from the young people at the commencement address about the "emotional toll" life has taken on her, rather than offering them inspiration, hope and an example of character.

I wonder how Michelle Obama would have fared in Dr. Washington's time when racial issues were undoubtedly extreme. But thanks to people like Dr. Washington making inroads toward making things easier for her today, Michelle has a resentful chip on her shoulder rather than a humble nod of gratitude for the blessings in her life. Because of that, instead of inspiring anyone at Tuskegee, all Michelle Obama likely accomplished was to set race relations back by decades. 


What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Hillary isn't pro-middle class or pro-woman. Here's why.

In her “Hillary for America” campaign, Hillary Clinton paints herself as a pro-American champion of the middle class and women. But does she really live up to these claims?

Since her days of supporting “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky – who advocated socialism to take down the middle class – Hillary has nurtured a long-simmering war against basic American values like capitalism – a system that’s done more to lift people out of poverty than any other in history. Yet in “championing” the middle class, Hillary has vowed to wipe out the “One Percent”, starting with her campaign attack on CEO income.

As part of the One Percent herself, though, Hillary’s an odd choice to criticize income inequality considering she makes six times the annual average household income per hour for her speeches, at $300,000 each. Hillary received $8 million and $14 million advances for her two memoirs, respectively, and since leaving the White House, has earned well over $100 million with her husband.

How nice that “Hillary for America” benefits immensely from capitalism, but wants to force un-American wealth redistribution on everyone else at the expense of not just the wealthy, but the middle class who would much less likely have the jobs the supposedly evil (but now bankrupt) CEOs would otherwise provide.

Unlike the CEOs she targets, Hillary doesn’t employ many people, nor produce anything except income for herself. In Hillary’s socialist world, profiting from speeches and books is good. Profiting from running a business is bad.

If Hillary really cared about average working people, she’d campaign on reducing the regulation and taxation that have strangled our economy for years, resulting in millions of lost middle-class jobs. But Hillary will play the class warfare card because she knows it appeals to that ever-growing part of the electorate that votes on emotions over facts, like the fact that her socialist policies would only hurt the people she’s promising to help.

In considering her long list of baggage, though, it’s hard to believe anything Hillary promises. Since her work on the Watergate investigation, where her then-supervisor Jerry Zeifman described her as “an unethical, self-serving, dishonest lawyer,” Hillary’s been at the epicenter of scandals. Space doesn’t permit full detail of Chinagate, Travelgate, FBI Filegate, Whitewater, Lootergate, the drug dealer scandal, Ponzi schemes, Vince Foster’s mysterious death, etc., but the pattern of corruption trumps Hillary’s desire for our trust.

As Senator, “middle class champion” Hillary accomplished little more than to vote against middle-class tax cuts - twice. As Secretary of State, “Hillary for America” carried out disastrous foreign policies resulting in global chaos and reduced national security; committed serious illegal email activity; and denied repeated requests for security to our U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the murder of four Americans. When questioned about that, Hillary notoriously hissed, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” I bet the grieving loved ones would beg to differ.

In her latest scandal, Hillary accepted millions of dollars from foreign countries for personal profit through the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State, allegedly in return for preferential treatment to these foreign countries from her State Department. Crookedness follows Hillary once again, who, by the way, dismissed the allegation as a “distraction” without actually denying it.

So which traits do Hillary supporters truly think would make her a good president? Or is the prospect of the first female president all that matters (as long as she’s a Democrat)?  No doubt Hillary will deliver great gender-based soundbites designed to excite women. But is Hillary really pro-woman, or just an ambitious power-seeker who’ll play the gender card to win votes? Think about it.

Was Hillary pro-woman when she defended the rapist of a 12-year old girl and then laughed about getting him off lightly though she suspected he was guilty -- while depicting the victim as a mentally unstable girl who engaged in romantic fantasizing? Is being beaten into a five-day coma, as the victim was, Hillary’s idea of a romanticized sexual experience? Imagine the uproar had a conservative male presidential candidate done as “champion of women” Hillary did.

As “pro-woman” Hillary rode to the White House on her husband’s coattails, she viciously smeared, investigated, and threatened the women who accused Bill Clinton of philandering, sexual harassment and rape. To Hillary, it was all just “bimbo-eruption management” and a “vast right-wing conspiracy”, despite that Bill eventually admitted to most of the accusations.

When conservative men, like Clarence Thomas, are accused of sexual harassment, outraged feminists demand blood. But when Senator Bob Packwood, a liberal Republican, was accused of sexual harassment, Hillary dismissed the “whiny women” because she needed the famously pro-abortion senator on healthcare.

Speaking of abortion, how is Hillary's rabid support for it really pro-woman considering the physical and emotional consequences of it, not to mention the fact that millions of future women never have been nor will be born because of it? Then again, when it comes to so-called "reproductive rights", Hillary doesn't believe women can manage it on their own. She believes other women must be forced to pay for it, even if it violates their deeply held religious beliefs (religious beliefs, by the way, that Hillary recently announced should be eliminated as "obstacles" to "reproductive rights".)

And finally, how can Hillary claim she’s truly for “women’s rights” when she accepted millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation from Middle Eastern countries known for their abominable treatment of women, without even denouncing their brutality

Hillary talks a good gender game, but in her lust for the White House, she’ll flatter or discard women as she sees fit. When it comes down to it, the only woman Hillary truly advocates for is Hillary herself. Don't buy in to the garbage she's selling. We deserve better than this.

If we ever do have a female president, shouldn’t it be one we can trust and be proud of, one who supports all of America -- not just preferred groups through stale policies that hurt all of America? How about we choose a president not because of gender, race or any other first, but because he or she embodies true American values and integrity. That’s what our country needs. We certainly don’t need Hillary.




Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Happy Earth Day. Well, not really.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan set about to implement free-enterprise economic policies to restart the world's most powerful economic engine after the Democrat-induced recession brought our country to a near stop. In addition to those policies, Reagan attempted to unshackle the economy from "unjust, oppressive and impolitic" regulations, and the net result was the longest and strongest sustained period of economic growth in U.S. history.

One of the regulatory giants Reagan reined in was the Environmental Protection Agency. Reagan was not an opponent of sound policies to encourage environmental conservation and preservation. In fact, he was an outdoorsman at heart and declared, "Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense." But he was a staunch foe of regulatory abuse as outlined in his Economic Bill of Rights.

But since Reagan’s time, the EPA has swelled into a major, powerful bureaucracy that seeks to control every aspect of our lives, even down to how much water we’re allowed to flush. While regulation of toilet water and light bulbs may seem harmless enough, the EPA mandates associated with the so-called "climate change" agenda are anything but harmless. Recall that "climate change" was formerly referred to as "global warming," for much the same reason that "progressive" was formally referred to as "liberal" — deceptive marketing to hide a very bad agenda.

Recall, too, that the grand master of the modern enviro-fascist movement was Al Gore, who launched these hot-air histrionics with his 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit." Since then, Gore has amassed a fortune through his shamelessly unscientific bull and subsequent "green" investments, not to mention the $500 million sale of his Current TV network interest to Al Jazeera in 2013.

Of course Gore’s fear tactics have produced a large and growing cult of earth-worshiping robots who are falling for all the nonsense. Little do they know that Gore’s real agenda was nothing more than to use the environment as cover for socialist economic control of our lives.

Christopher Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, aptly described Gore as “green on the outside, red to the core,” noting that his environmental concerns “are a thinly veiled subterfuge for his socialist agenda.” In other words, Gore is a watermelon. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

Since Gore laid the foundation for this lie, Barack Obama and the current leaders of his Socialist Democratic Party have masterfully used "Climate Change" to their advantage. They insist that warming, cooling, drenching, drying and all other normal weather activity is the direct result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, which must be regulated. No matter that their claims are untrue.

Accordingly, in his Earth Day message this week, Obama (who used up about 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to fly to Florida for Earth Day) declared, "Climate change can no longer be denied or ignored. ... 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record." But in fact, that claim is also a lie — and you can read why here. Of course, Obama is a very accomplished liar. And by the way, his little jaunt to Florida as a "champion of climate change" emitted 5 times the amount of CO2 in one day than the average American emits in an entire year. Sure, he's really pro-environment.

What disturbs me the most is that Obama refers to climate change as the biggest, most immediate threat to our world today. Really? How about asking the Christians being systematically murdered by Islamo-fascists on a daily basis what they’d say the threat is. A threat which, by the way, we all face.

Please people, stop falling for this climate change “crisis” hoax. It’s nothing but a smokescreen to scare you into giving up your freedoms so the government can tell you how to live while taxing the life out of you. Now that’s a crisis.


What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

                                      

Friday, April 17, 2015

How Christian business owners can enlist the help of anti-Christian bullies

It doesn't look like the government or the homosexualist activists ("gay mafia") are going to back down from bullying Christian business owners who don't want to celebrate their same-sex weddings. So if the law won't protect Christians, maybe some good old fashioned turning of the tables will.

One idea floating around is that the next time a gay mafioso demands a Christian baker, caterer, photographer or florist participate in his same-sex "marriage" ceremony, maybe the Christian should agree to provide services with the stipulation - in writing - that all fees from the gay bully will be donated to traditional marriage/traditional values charities and activist initiatives.

The Christian business owner should then advertise the gay bully's monetary support of these pro-family organizations by posting the transaction on Facebook, on Twitter, on the Christian business owner's own storefront - whatever it takes - including the name of the gay bully in question so there is no mistake in who supplied the money to the pro-traditional values entity.

I have absolutely no problem with someone for being homosexual. None. But I do have a problem when someone tells me I must choose his values system over my own, or when someone tells me that my belief in God and His teachings as I know it is wrong.

The homosexualist bullies want to force themselves on Christians? Ok. Maybe it's time for Christians to use it to the advantage of pro-family initiatives. Maybe, just maybe, the gay bullies will back down because they will now be faced with picking on someone their own size - an idea I'm sure they dislike. It's much easier to pick on the meek Christian taught to turn the other cheek. But there is no law that says Christians must be doormats. Sometimes engaging in the fight is necessary for survival.