Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Denying link between Islam and terrorism is a foolish mistake

When will our world's leaders unbury their heads and acknowledge the link between terrorism and Islam? No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but pretty much every act of terrorism we've seen in the past couple of decades have been enacted by Muslims in the name of Allah.

But liberals want us to think that Christians are the real threat. They want us to believe that Christians are trying to take away other people’s religious rights, Christians are trying to destroy science education, Christians are radicals and potential home-grown terrorists.

Of course there are some Christians who are sick in the head and do bad things. But they are denounced by practicing Christians, not praised like Muslim terrorists are, as indicated by the dancing in the streets we saw by many Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks. And to the argument that it's only a small percentage of Muslims who are intent on killing those who don't praise Allah, keep in mind there are about a billion Muslims. Even a small percentage of that means millions of radical, deadly Muslims scouring the earth for their latest targets to kidnap, rape and behead.

Meanwhile Christians in America are getting in trouble for praying in public, for putting a crucifix on their desk or even, as in the case of one fire station, putting up a “Happy Birthday, Jesus” sign during the Christmas season. Even a Christian military chaplain was recently punished for citing Scripture during a suicide prevention seminar he was leading. 

But murdering Christians because they don't embrace Islam? Beheading a woman in Oklahoma because she refused to convert? Holding Sydney-based cafe patrons hostage for hours and killing some of them because they're not Muslim? Slaughtering hundreds of Pakistani children at school in the name of Allah? These are just isolated incidents carried out by misguided criminals, according to world leaders and many in the media. 

What is particularly disturbing, is that in the wake of the Sydney hostage crisis, almost immediately afterward, the hashtag #illridewithyou popped up in Twitter in support of Muslims. Why was there no #illprayforyou hashtag in support of the hostages and the victims who were killed?

In fact, the day after the hostage showdown in Sydney, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott proclaimed that ISIS - the group responsible for the hostage situation at the cafe - has nothing to do with any religion. I guess he doesn't know that the first "I" in ISIS stands for Islamic.

In a press-conference response to the beheading of an American journalist by ISIS members, our own denier-in-chief Barack Obama said earlier this year that ISIS is neither Islamic nor a State. I guess he doesn't know that the first "S" in ISIS stands for State. Then again, he had to get back to the golf course immediately after that conference so probably didn't have time to do his fact checking.

If these radical Islamists wanted to keep their fanatic beliefs to themselves, that would be one thing. But they don't. They have announced repeatedly their intentions to take over the world and kill anyone who doesn't adopt their beliefs. From what we're seeing, they're living up to their promise, and anyone denying the threat they represent is a fool.


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


Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Making girls out of little boys*

Young men are being totally raked over the coals in this culture by the high powered engines of radical feminism. The feminist extremists, which includes some men, and their “men-are-despicable” philosophy occupy the high ground in every institution – largely because they have played the victim card to perfection.

They control the education establishment, the media, the entertainment world, the courts and even the various religious bodies – and they have done this by taking aim squarely at
authentic masculinity.

So today, older boys and younger men dance to the music of feminist rage – not to mention quite a few older males as well, who still knew better back in the bra-burning days of the 1960s.

The masculine has become so belittled and denigrated that boys do the easiest, laziest, most gratifying thing available and simply retreat into video games and pornography, and are  drugged up by the feminzai-controlled education system which diagnoses 1 in 7 American boys as having ADHD -- and then writes a prescription for them for Ritalin – a powerful mood stabilizer – merely for being boys.

The scourge of society in the past 50 years has been the lack of the authentic masculine, because an effective authentic masculinity would have never allowed this highly charged destructive radical feminism to emerge and kill the men. 

Last week at Georgetown Hilary Clinton gave a speech. She strode up to the podium in her pantsuit and strongly suggested that women are better at foreign policy and governing than men are. They are better at building coalitions and reaching consensus than men, she said – apparently, she’s never heard of Queen Elizabeth I or Moa Tse Tung’s wife.

During the University of Virginia frat rape story – which has turned out to be much more fantasy than reality – the feministas were tripping all over themselves on various TV outlets breathlessly denouncing men in high drama – again pushing the victim angle saying women were objects of hate.

So, where are all the men? We see idiot men in TV commercials and sitcoms. We see serial killer men in movies. We see sex-crazed men in music videos and we see effeminate men in religious realms.

But where are the real men? There are still many who exist - I personally know many - but by and large, they’ve been sidelined because strong authentic men are an obstacle to the weak, effeminate, emotion saturated high dungeon of radical feminism.

And it is precisely this that must be fought against – shrill radical feminism must be confronted by confident authentic masculinity.* 

Now the question is, how do we bring back the real men from the shadows into the light?

*From Michael Vorhis/ChurchMilitantTV.com

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Assisted suicide: Relief at the expense of life itself

Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, invited public debate on assisted suicide when she announced through the Compassion and Choices organization her decision to move to Oregon to take advantage of its “right to die” law, where she died by lethal prescription on Nov. 1. It is a tragic case. But was Brittany’s decision courageous and a victory for freedom, as advocates of assisted-suicide claim, or does it undermine the sanctity of life?

Brittany chose death, she said, to spare her loved ones from seeing her suffer and because she also, very understandably, feared the physical suffering her doctors promised she would endure. I don’t know what Brittany’s thoughts on God were, but the issue evokes the often asked question, “If God is all powerful and good, then why does He allow bad things to happen to people?”

The question is rooted in atheism, which directs us to observe the evil around us as proof that there is no God. But although suffering does exist, God does not will that we suffer, just as He did not will that Adam and Eve sin. And while nobody, save masochists, wants to suffer, some believe it can actually be redemptive.

Catholicism, for instance, teaches that suffering, when accepted and offered up in union with the Passion of Jesus, can aid in the physical or spiritual needs of oneself or another. And when Christ tells us to "take up your cross and follow me” (Mt.16:24), we are invited to that union with Him in our own suffering.

Of course not everyone holds this biblical view and I don’t assume to know what Brittany believed or experienced. I only know my personal experience in watching my own mother’s battle with terminal brain cancer and how her lifelong witness of faith, especially during that difficult time, brought me to a more full understanding that her suffering was not from God, but the grace to endure it was.

This is what saddens me about Brittany’s suicide and all those who do the same. Do they seek to escape their suffering because of a lonely fear not rooted in unity with God? I don’t claim to know their reasons, but when we do remove God from life’s challenges, we’re left only with our human fears and the decisions we make based on those fears. And where will such decisions ultimately take us as a society?

In a world that prizes free choice above all else, Brittany’s highly publicized “death by choice” is applauded by some as a victory for freedom, which plays right into the culture of death that has taken such ghoulish hold of our world. Just as abortion is packaged as “liberating” to women, we are now seeing the disturbingly misguided concept that all choice is good choice – “as long as it’s my choice” – being applied toward achieving our own deaths. How terribly sad.

But if we use freedom as the basis for ending life, then at what point can we put a limit on that freedom? The simple answer is, we can’t. If it is seen as cruel to suggest someone should endure suffering, then why shouldn’t society advocate lethal prescriptions for everyone the instant a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer is made?

And why stop there? Under the premise of freedom, we shouldn’t expect a diabetic to endure the challenges that come with that condition. Nor should we expect someone heartbroken by unrequited love to withstand that sort of suffering. In fact, why not advocate death for anyone whose quality of life is not what they expect? A visit to any pro assisted-suicide chat room will show you this is precisely what is being encouraged now.

Maybe this explains why so many young people today choose suicide when bullied. They’ve grown up witnessing that personal comfort is valued over human life itself. What lessons are youngsters being taught that suffering is a part of life and that their own lives are sacred, even if not perfect?  

Interestingly though, when we hear of someone’s suicide, such as recently with Robin Williams, there is an outcry over the tragedy of it because by nature we see suicide as a heartbreaking choice. How, then, is it any less tragic just because someone publicly plans her suicide with a physician’s assistance? 

In a way, it’s even worse, because by normalizing death as a solution to life’s problems, more people will opt for it, and eventually it may no longer be the suffering individual’s despair – but our own despair over someone else’s suffering -- that becomes justification to end a life.

Case in point, there are end-of-life counseling directives in Obamacare, and the first expense slashed under the health law was billions of dollars to treat the elderly. How many “suffering” people are encouraged to die to save money altogether or because a “compassionate” society desensitized to death – but not to suffering -- decides on someone’s behalf that suffering should be rejected? And just who decides how much suffering is too much?

This is what happens, though, when we blur the boundaries of life’s value: We subject ourselves to others’ notions of what life should be, while providing protective cover to those who would seek to have us die.


I pray for Brittany’s soul and for her grieving loved ones. I also pray that life, not death, is what our culture exalts, despite the challenges that life brings. And while we should always seek new and better ways to reduce suffering, assisted suicide offers relief only at the expense of human life itself; human life that has God-given dignity and unseen purpose, from conception to natural death. 

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

13 facts media won't tell you about Ferguson case

According to protesters who erupted in violence after a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., this was the case of a white policeman shooting an unarmed black teenager with his hands in the air in a community plagued by racial tension.

That's the  account promoted by many in the mainstream media and race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as well. But here are several facts about the case that are harder to find:

1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.

2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.

3. Officer Wilson, driving to the call of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.

4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.

5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.

6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a p****y to shoot me."

7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.

8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."

9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.

10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.

11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."

12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."

13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.*

*13 facts courtesy of Newsmax

Why can't people understand that law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves? If an officer feels like his life is in danger he can shoot. They shoot white people charging at them, armed or unarmed, too. The media and professional race hustlers jumped all over this issue, ignoring facts in favor of fanning racial flames and now look at the mess it has caused. 

In his response to the Grand Jury's decision not to indict Officer Willis, President Barack Obama said he understood how difficult this decision is for the black community to take. He called for peace, and said we are a nation of law, but he never mentioned the need to obey the law. He never told the thugs burning down Ferguson that they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Then again, when he flew to Ferguson the day after the elections, Obama told key "anti-Wilson" stakeholders there to "stay the course".  Stay what course? To burn their town to the ground if the decision didn't go their way, despite the evidence revealed in testimony that points to Wilson's lack of intentional guilt?

Now the "victims of racism" in Ferguson are robbing, looting, burning, pillaging, all in the name of justice. Justice for whom? Since when does criminal action render justice to anyone? 


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

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Obama cites Bible when it suits his liberal agenda, ignores it for the rest of us

In his address to the nation earlier this week, President Barack Obama cited Scripture to defend his illegal executive action on immigration without congressional approval. Essentially granting amnesty to at least 5 million illegal aliens by some estimates, Obama included a brief citation from Exodus by saying, "Scripture tells us we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.”

First, the president's deference to biblical scripture is suspicious. If Obama felt such a strong biblical need to shred our Constitution, why did he wait until after the elections to do this? After all, if it is the right thing to do, Obama wouldn't have had to worry about hurting Democrats' election campaigns by doing this before Nov. 4. 

And as as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “If he feels so strongly … and Scripture dictates this ought to be done, why did he do nothing about this in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the Congress … when he could have done this constitutionally?”

Second, it is not a form of oppression to ask somebody to obey the law. If someone breaks the law and experiences legal consequences, that's not oppression. That's justice. Compassion, in fact, is helping someone to obey the law, not break it.

Third, the command to be kind toward immigrants is directed to us as individuals, not to government. The government's job is justice; kindness and generosity is our job.

Obama's reliance on Scripture also reeks of hypocrisy. Notice how he will use the Bible when it suits his extremely liberal agenda on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex "marriage." But when it comes to those who are living their lives based on biblical principles - such as those who cite Scripture on the sin of homosexuality or murder - Obama thumbs his nose at them. He conveniently ignores the Bible's teachings to justify his forcing religious people to pay for abortifacients or to participate in same-sex events, despite their deeply held biblical beliefs that say such things are a sin.

Obama sycophants will try to tell us that Reagan and Bush also used executive orders on immigration. Yes, to clarify existing laws - not to disregard laws and make new ones on a whim. And no matter what Reagan and Bush did, their actions were nowhere near the magnificent scope of what Obama has done.

With all the legal Americans searching in vain for work under our Obama nation, what do you think 5 million new unskilled workers will do to Americans' job search efforts? Now that they don't have to remain hidden, do you really think they will continue to settle for jobs in the fields? No, they will go after the same jobs Americans are currently struggling to find. The only difference is that the illegals will be granted all sorts of tax-funded assistance in the form of education, healthcare and food stamps, while Americans are on their own.

There is no more basic duty of a government than that of protecting its borders. And the promised Executive Order, universally assumed to entail amnesty and residency status for millions of people who entered our country illegally, intentionally undermines this most basic duty. It also sets up the president as a grand legislator, able to make law for the nation in defiance of the national legislature.

When the effects of Obama's incessant attacks on America are felt by the average American, maybe everyone's eyes will be open to what this man is doing to our country and our rule of law. At that point, about the closest thing to a scriptural-sounding passage we could assign to this president would be, "And Obama loved the poor so much that he created millions more."


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


Sunday, November 16, 2014

Pro-life Women Will Make History in 114th Congress*

The pro-life movement can be comforted to know that come this January there will be a record number of women representing them in Congress.

An historic 21 women who define themselves as pro-life will be serving in the 114th Congress, beating the previous high of 18. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said that in 1992, when she started the SBA List, there were only two pro-life women in Congress. What a difference a few elections make.

The four new pro-life women joining the House of Representatives include Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Mia Love (R-UT), Barbara Comstock (R-VA) and Mimi Walters (R-CA). As for the Senate, it will gain pro-life fighter Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

This new pro-life representation bodes well for legislation like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill which would ban abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to introduce it for a vote once he becomes majority leader.

The influx of pro-lifers in Congress parallels the country’s shift on abortion. In May 2012, a record low of Americans (47 percent) defined themselves as “pro-choice” and millennials have been referred to as the pro-life generation, especially considering their passion at this year's March for Life in Washington, DC. One reason for this may be advances in technology, such as ultrasound machines, which allows us to peek into the womb and witness an unborn baby’s growth.

Watch Dannenfelser explain how voters rejected the idea that abortion is the "great liberator of women."

It’s that simple: The more pro-life leaders we elect, the more babies we save. And hopefully this will end the 'war on women' line of bull from the Democrats forever. I'm sick and tired of hearing it.


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



*Courtesy of Cortney O'Brien

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Liberals claim Tuesday's election results a sign of racism

Despite Tuesday’s election results -- a clear rejection of the socialist direction our country has been taking -- liberals are still claiming their way is the best way, and, oddly, in what can only be seen as desperate, some are claiming the results were because of conservative racism. I guess they don't realize that conservatives elected the first black Republican woman to the US House of Representatives, Mia Love of Utah, and the first black Senator from the South elected since reconstruction, Tim Scott of South Carolina.

It’s not a huge number, but it’s a big message that I hope black Americans currently under the thumb of race-baiting tactics will eventually embrace – that there is an alternative to the Democrat-controlled method of staying in power by convincing black people that Democrats are their only hope.

As far as racism in America, there are two camps that black people are currently viewed by: those with "victim" mentality, championed by the likes of uber racists like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who have made their fame and fortune by hustling “the racist white man” for millions of dollars, and by fomenting strife between the races, such as they’re currently doing in Ferguson, MO.

The other camp consists of men like Allan West and Dr. Ben Carson, men at the top of the field, truly 'self made men' starting in the depths of urban poverty and ending at the pinnacle of personal and professional success.

But Al, Jessie and their minions deride men like Ben and Alan as 'sellouts' and 'puppets' of the conservatives. They’re simply “Uncle Toms” because they don't need Al and Jessie, don't make excuses for their lives and, worst of all, keep themselves far away from the Democrat plantation.

As we all know, if anyone criticizes President Obama, it’s not because they don’t like his policies, it’s because they don’t like the color of his skin. But as Congresswoman-elect Mia Love said of her victory, “This has nothing to do with race. I wasn’t elected because of the color of my skin…I was elected because of the solutions I put on the table.”


How nice it would be if the mainstream media broadcast Ms. Love’s message as widely as it fans the flames of supposed racism, such as it’s doing in Ferguson, MO. 


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