Thursday, December 19, 2013

'Duck Dynasty' debacle shows left's complete intolerance & hypocrisy

During a GQ interview, "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson expressed his views on homosexuality, acknowledging his agreement with the Bible, which declares it a sin. He has now been suspended from the hit A&E show for his views.

In a statement, A&E said it was extremely disappointed to hear Robertson's remarks, which it said were based on his personal beliefs and do not reflect those of the A&E Network -- which considers itself a friend of the lesbian and gay community (it's just not a friend of different opinions, apparently). Human rights groups and GLAAD have also chimed in, slamming Robertson for his "vile" comments.

It's interesting, though, how we didn't hear human rights groups, N.O.W. or any other leftist group chime in when MSNBC host Martin Bashir said on air recently that someone should do unspeakable things in Sara Palin's mouth. Bashir has since resigned, but MSNBC gave him the dignity of remaining on air for two more weeks and allowed him to give a farewell statement, rather than firing him on the spot for his own vile comments.

But Bashir gets a pass in general by the mainstream media and others because his personal views are of the leftist variety in general. And as one sympathetic commentator put it, "while I don't agree with Bashir's statements, it is a free country."

Yes, it is a free country - for people like Bashir. But each day that passes it's becoming less of a free country for people like Robertson, whose views are based on Judeo-Christian principles not in line with the leftist world view of anything goes. Instead of tolerating people like Robertson - the left, who markets itself as the champion of tolerance - is waging a systematic silencing campaign against Robertson and anyone else who refuses to fall in line with leftist thinking.

Of course A&E has the right to fire Robertson if it chooses, but the fact that it's firing him simply for violating their fascist speech codes is what's so worrisome.

Consider the baker in Colorado who is being forced by a judge to bake wedding cakes for a same-sex couple, despite the fact it violates his Christian beliefs to do so. The Senate has voted for a bill that allows any homosexual who gets fired to sue for discrimination, regardless of the reason for his termination. Christian employers are being forced to provide for contraception and abortifacients that violate their faith teachings. The military is consistently trying to officially designate Christian evangelicals as a "hate group." San Antonio and other cities' anti-discrimination laws protect gays, but stifle Christians' free speech rights, while schools, cities and other public places are doing everything they can to ban Christmas - or anything Christian related - from even being mentioned.

A&E's actions against Robertson aren't so much a case of employer/employee disgruntlement as it is a very public example of how it feels Christians should be treated in general. While the network was happy to rake in millions of dollars off the popular Robertson show - of which the family's Christian principles are a centerpiece - for Robertson to express those beliefs anywhere else is grounds for termination. Why? Is A&E that afraid of gay activists who are furious that Robertson would dare to speak about his faith in a way that doesn't endorse homosexuality outright? It doesn't matter that Robertson also said we should love and respect homosexuals. The fact that he believes in Biblical teachings on it overall is the problem.

Where will it stop? As an increasing number of private corporations in a post-bailout era are dependent on government use of tax money in order to survive, consider how long it will be before a company's views on homosexuality will be a litmus test for how 'deserving' it is of government support. And as the increasingly bold speech-police state envelops this country, how much more common will it be that employees at these companies - a.k.a. private citizens - will be fired simply for speaking about their beliefs, while homosexuals are given preferential, protected treatment? 

Last time I checked, a free and mature country is one that allows for diverse views, beliefs and thoughts. But according to the supposedly tolerant left, freedom of speech only applies to the extent that you believe and think the same way they do. If you don't, and if you believe in Christian principles, be prepared for the forces of scorn to be unleashed upon you - and worse. The left says conservatives are the ones trying to force their morals on the country, but it is conservatives who are being forced to walk the "acceptable" leftist line, or else. 


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

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

iTunes approves "gay" app for children

Question: “If you’re gay and new to an area, how do you find out where gay people hang out?” Simple. Just get Distinc.tt, the newly approved app for iOS-based phones and tablets, now available in Apple’s iTunes for users 12 years old and older. Yes, 12 years old.

How does Distinc.tt work? It tracks users’ locations through GPS. This means your local friendly pedophile will know that a pre-teen child who has downloaded the app is at the mall, the arcade, the local movie theater, or any nearby location convenient to the pervert who’d like nothing more than to know where to find such young, impressionable kids.

Similar homosexual dating apps require users to be 18 years and above because the makers of these apps acknowledge they’re mostly used for arranging anonymous sexual encounters. But Apple has no problem allowing children to use it, even describing it as the only family-friendly “LGBT app that you can bring home to Mom,” according to Distinc.tt CEO Michael Belkin.

Unfortunately if Mom’s little loved one forgets to turn off the app’s tracking device, predators will know exactly where to find him or her.

While the app is also available for Google’s Android operating system, that company has limited its availability to users 18 and older. Only Apple has approved Distinc.tt for use by minor children. I’m sure NAMBLA members nationwide are rejoicing.


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

Monday, December 9, 2013

Do LGBT rights trump religious rights?

A Colorado judge ruled last week that a Christian baker should be forced to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples despite the fact that homosexuality violates the baker's religious beliefs. The judge, Robert N. Spencer, also ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to try to live his faith by turning away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.

"The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage," Spencer wrote.


Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.


Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. Instead of going to any other bakery that would have baked them a cake, the couple opted to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.


"Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration," Mullins said in a statement. "No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are."


And nobody should fear the government's power to make us deny our deeply held religious beliefs either. But that's exactly what is happening (and not just in this baker's case, but in other cases around the country). What we're seeing is that homosexuals' rights are being given more credence than citizens' religious rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 


Not surprisingly, the ACLU of Colorado is celebrating the judge's ruling as a major victory for "gay rights." 


"While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one's religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers," ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. "No one is asking Masterpiece's owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple."


Phillips was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases. Attorney Nicolle Martin condemned the judge's ruling.


"America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs," Martin said in a prepared statement. "Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free."


Martin said this was simply a case of a baker who declined to use his personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony. "If the government can take aware our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can't take away," she said.


Martin added that Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he won't even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.


"He's just trying to live within a certain set of biblical principles because he believes that he answers to God for everything that he does," Martin said. "It sends a message not just to other business owners, it sends a message to Americans – that if the government can take away our First amendment freedoms and tell you what to say and when to say it, there's nothing they can't take away." 


Judge Spencer said Phillips did not demonstrate that his free speech rights had been violated and he said there's no evidence that forcing him to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony would hurt his business.


"On the contrary, to the extent that the law prohibits Respondents' (Phillips) from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, compliance with the law would likely increase their business by not alienating the gay community," he wrote.


But who is this judge to make decisions on what is and isn't good for anyone's business? And who is anyone in a position of public power to tell us we must sell goods & services that violate our conscience? 


While pro-homosexual defenders like to compare this case to the kind of discrimination that black Americans have experienced, they're overlooking one key thing: Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that there is something wrong with being black, and therefore, to discriminate against a human being for the color of their skin is wrong. But in many places throughout the Bible, we're taught that homosexuality is an abomination.  


Yet the government is forcing us to abandon those beliefs by forcing us to take even a slight part in it -- and that is a serious problem that will only get worse if left unchecked. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this trend is heading, including the attempt to force Catholic priests to perform same-sex "marriages". 


In the meantime, where are the lawsuits against Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who are carrying unopened bottles of alcohol (e.g. a bottle of wine) or who are accompanied by seeing-eye dogs. Muslims refuse to do these things based on their religious beliefs. Where is the outcry against them?

The writing on the wall is clear as to which religion is most targeted for real discrimination here. But imagine a country where a sexual lifestyle carries more weight than a Bible-based belief. Does that look like an America we would want to live in? Think about it.


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

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Why do some want to forfeit rights in the false name of abortion as "healthcare"?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear the challenge by the Christian-owned Hobby Lobby stores against the HHS birth control mandate, which requires all employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception, abortifacient drugs and sterilizations. 

Hobby Lobby's employee health insurance currently does offer 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptions required by Obamacare. They simply object to the remaining ones that cause abortions, because abortion violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Not surprisingly, the hysterical feminists and their male counterpart supporters are in a self-righteous, Sandra Fluke-like frenzy over Hobby Lobby's audacious "attempt to impose its religious beliefs" on women by "denying them access" to birth control - which they wrongly refer to as "women's healthcare."

First of all, Hobby Lobby - specifically its founder, David Green, is not forcing any religious beliefs on anyone. If Hobby Lobby were to say any employee working for them was not allowed to use contraception as a condition of employment, the argument may have a bit more merit. But even then, not really, for the simple fact that nobody is forced to work at Hobby Lobby.

Second, preventing or terminating a pregnancy is not healthcare. Maternity is a valid health issue to the extent of "well-care" pre-natal visits, delivery, and the like. I don't know of any company that objects to coverage of maternity for those to whom it applies (although, under Obamacare, plenty of us object to being forced to carry it, including men, who do not need it). But contraception or abortifacients have more to do with the woman's decision on whether to pursue or terminate pregnancy. That is simply not healthcare (not to mention the fact that there are actually many health dangers that come with contraception use and abortion).

Other Hobby Lobby critics argue that a corporation is not a person, and therefore has no constitutional rights. I marvel at these people's grasp of reality as I try to imagine a company coming into existence and functioning without individual people to make it all happen - people who, in this case, are individuals with guaranteed rights as American citizens.

But reason and logic are non-existent to the group of frantic people who define women solely by their reproductive systems and literally freak out at the notion that a woman may have to make her reproductive choices on her own -- without the forced complicity of her employer.

It could be almost humorous to reflect on all the times we hear pro-abortion supporters tell the government to keep its hands off women's bodies and its noses out of their bedrooms, while these same people want employers to become directly involved against their will in these supposedly private aspects of women's lives. The problem is, there is nothing funny about what is happening here.

Indeed, it's a gravely serious matter that our government, through the HHS mandate, is throwing out our constitutional right to freedom of religion - including the free expression thereof - and is replacing it with a restricted parameter of how we can live our religious beliefs. Should the government get its way, we will be free to go to church (for now) and read the Bible in the privacy of our own homes (for now), but will need to check all our beliefs at the door upon entering the public square.

To all those who think an individual should be forced to choose between the law and his faith in the false name of "women's healthcare", I simply ask, what makes a woman's desire to use contraception or abortifacients -- which she is free to access on her own -- more important than any citizen's constitutional right not to partake in these actions on religious grounds? Why should these women's beliefs be more important than anyone else's? 

There's a dangerous precedent being set here by our government, one that could be used against all of us depending on which ideology is in power. So with that, I leave the Hobby Lobby critics with this age-old caveat: Be careful what you wish for. Stifled freedoms like the one you're demanding to stifle could just as easily be used against you should someone else be in power who doesn't think like you. For your own sake, you should pray that Hobby Lobby wins its case, and then you should thank them for fighting on your behalf to keep the constitutional rights you'd be sorry to lose - whether you realize it now or not.


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

Friday, November 15, 2013

Obama's healthcare trick is a flagrant violation of law

By delaying the individual health insurance mandate for one year, President Obama made a desperate ploy yesterday to try to save the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections. What he did not do was anything that will help the millions of people facing the loss of their health plans (myself included). He merely punted the ball to land in the same dangerous field a year from now after the elections are over.

He did say something interesting yesterday, however, when he said, “I didn’t realize how difficult it was to buy healthcare.”  The man is  52 years old. He is just now learning this? More importantly, what makes a man who has obviously never bought health insurance for himself think he can force it on 350 million Americans?

Remember how President George H.W. Bush was excoriated for not being familiar with price scanners at a grocery market? But Obama’s worshipers are just fine with the fact that he has never even partaken in the very part of the economy that he is trying to overtake.

But most disturbing is the fact that Obama's supporters are also apparently fine with the fact that Obama is flagrantly breaking the law, because he is absolutely not authorized to change the healthcare law willy nilly. While his supporters admonish those of us against the law to “deal with it…it’s the law,” they have no problem when the president changes it at whim – which is completely unconstitutional to do. Of course, when facing a complete policy failure, Obama's standard tactic is to ignore the law.


Breitbart.com puts it this way: “Everyone should know from their high-school government classes that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to make federal laws, and Article II of the Constitution gives the American president the executive power to administer and enforce those laws. Article II then includes the language about how the president must faithfully execute those laws.”
Breitbart.com continues, “Obama’s announcement (today) is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act. Every day provides additional proof that Obamacare is a complete train wreck, but it is one regarding which only Congress can change the terms….” not Obama.
What Obama is doing should terrify all of us. Still, his blind followers will likely defend him to the end because he carries the political “D” after his name. But they would be wise to abandon this childish ground for support because this is not about Democrat vs. Republican, right vs. left. This is about the identity of America itself. Are we a nation of law, or have we devolved into an unsettling combination of banana republic/dictatorship? Under Obama, we’re rapidly heading for the latter, toward the completion of Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform America." 

Will Obama's sycophants ever wake up to realize this? I won’t hold my breath. Besides, I’m pretty sure my government-approved healthcare plan wouldn’t cover the consequences of doing so.

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

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Help support Senate bill to protect pain-capable unborn children

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670) in the U.S. Senate. This bill would protect unborn children from abortion, nationwide, beginning at 20 weeks’ fetal age, based on scientific evidence that by this stage of development (if not earlier), the baby will experience excruciating pain when subjected to typical late abortion procedures. This is the most important single pro-life bill to be proposed in Congress since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted ten years ago. 

This new bill (S. 1670) is almost identical to (H.R. 1797, a bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives.  Now, it’s time to demand that the U.S. Senate vote on this landmark legislation. 

Thirty-six (36) senators have already joined Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as co-sponsors of the new legislation.  Please add your voice. Click here to find tools that make it easy for you to send e-mail messages to your two U.S. senators in just a couple of minutes.  You will be shown a suggested message, which you can modify or replace as you see fit. 

If your senators have already cosponsored S. 1670, thank them.  If they have not done so, urge them to sign on as cosponsors immediately.  In either case, please express your strong support for S. 1670 -- and ask them to urge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) to allow an early Senate vote on S. 1670.

To view an up-to-date list of all of the co-sponsors of S. 1670, arranged by state, click here.

To see a video of National Right to Life Senior Legislative Counsel Susan T. Muskett go toe-to-toe with two critics of the bill on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" (November 8), click here.

The forces that are opposed to legal protections for unborn children have financial resources that are far greater than pro-life advocates.  Already, the radical pro-abortion group "NARAL Pro-Choice America" is running a TV ad against S. 1670.  Please take a moment to add your support for this bill.


Source: National Right to Life

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Where's the left's outrage on recent murders of two young black people in Michigan?

Earlier this week we learned of the tragic death of Tiane Brown, a young mother of three in the process of getting her law degree at Wayne State University before she was brutally murdered by a gunshot to the head.

On the morning of Oct. 18, 20 year-old Eastern Michigan student and football player, Demarius Reed, was gunned down in front of Ypsilanti’s University Green Apartments. Police say robbery is a possible motive in the incident and the investigation remains open.

Both these young people had very promising futures and reputations for being good, positive role models. My prayers and heart go out to their families and all who are grieving for them.

But what I can't help notice is the lack of 24/7 press coverage either of these murders is getting. It makes you wonder where the media's priorities are and what constitutes a prominent story. 

When Trayvon Martin was killed in a scuffle with neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, it was all we heard about for months. The reason for that, of course, is because Zimmerman, who ended up firing the fatal shot on Martin, wasn't black. In their desperate attempt to sensationalize the case, media talking heads were forced to label Zimmerman a "white Hispanic", because "regular" Hispanics are apparently too much a minority themselves to ever be guilty of the race-driven crimes against black people that the media want us to believe are commonplace.

Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race-baiters were on the scene, fanning the flames of the racism accusations. President Obama himself wasted no time in weighing in on the case, emotionally telling the American people how closely he could relate to the systemic racism that leads to things like the Trayvon death. He even likened Trayvon to his own son - if he had one. 

But when it comes to Brown and Reed, I ask, where are the celebrities wearing hoodies? Where is CBS, ABC and NBC with their righteous denouncing of violence? Couldn't they generate even half the emotion for Brown and Reed that they did for the less than angelic Trayvon Martin?

Other stories in the news have also caught Obama's attention. When Texas state Senator Wendy Davis launched a lengthy filibuster recently to protest safety regulations and restrictions on abortion clinics, Obama took time out of his trip to Africa to contact her with showers of praise.

When Sandra Fluke announced to the country that she believed we the citizens should pay for her contraception so she could have sex as she pleases without "consequence", Obama heralded her a hero and the Democrats even made her their keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention last year.

But when hard working, young black people are gunned down in the prime of their very promising lives, Obama doesn't see it worthy to even offer a phone call of consolation to their devastated families. Of course, Obama cannot possibly contact the family of every murder victim in America, but perhaps if these recent victims' killers were white, he would. And the Jessie's and Al's of the world would follow suit, decrying racism on every news outlet that would host them.

Until then, though, they will of course remain silent, which only highlights how the contrast between what the leftists consider attention-worthy, and what barely evokes a perfunctory shrug, is very telling of where their real priorities lie.

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


Friday, October 25, 2013

Despite real problems, Obama's priority is unisex hats for military

The Obama administration has issued a directive to create a more unisex uniform for members of the Armed Forces, specifically asking for a more gender-neutral hat for the Marine Corps.  Currently, men and women wear gender specific uniforms and hats.

This may be a crazy and wild thought, but don’t we have bigger fish to fry in our country than bringing in the fashion state-police for a military makeover?  What’s worse is that to replace the hats would cost taxpayers $8 million. After Obama has already financially gutted the military to the point of threatening our very national security, how can he possibly justify spending one dime on something this ridiculous?

It's simple. Unfortunately, this is just one more example of how Obama sees our military not as a mode of national defense and security, but as a social experiment. It’s an experiment he’s conducting to see how he can use the military to prove petty political points and even inflict damage on military members themselves and US citizens at large. It started with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- which some military experts warn will undermine unit cohesion and effectiveness -- and quickly escalated to such things as allowing the Army to categorize citizen groups like the American Family Association as terrorist threats.

And as we all know, Obama actually spent money during the government shutdown to bar US war veterans from open memorials and used the shutdown to deny timely military death benefits to military members (even though Republicans offered funding to provide these benefits, which the Democrats rejected). And, of course, he also suspended religious services for Catholics during the shutdown (Protestant services were allowed to continue).

Most chilling, Obama has been methodically purging our military of generals and other leaders throughout our military since taking office - on no grounds of wrongdoing - just as Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and other dictators did in preparation for overthrowing their political foes. But it begs the questions, why is Obama doing this and with whom is he replacing these open positions? 

It’s disconcerting, to say the least, that Obama doesn’t seem to have much interest in resolving real issues, like the 43 million people on food stamps, or the covered-up murders of US citizens in Benghazi, the murder of thousands of people daily through abortion, or the monstrous ObamaCare debacle which is clearly more about control than healthcare, but he has all the time in the world deconstruct our national defense while orchestrating military fashion shows designed to emasculate our soldiers.

Most unfortunately, Obama's loyal supporters continue to swallow the progressive propaganda being spoon fed to them daily, and, therefore, continue to praise him despite these numerous signs of his blatant disdain for America. The truth is though, they need to wake up, and we all need to be vigilant, because this president is clearly up to no good.


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

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Obama orders shutdown of Catholic Mass; threatens arrest of priests

As the government "shutdown" enters its third week (during all this time, only about 23% of the government has been shut down, by the way) the Obama Administration continues to play politics....and worse.

We heard last week how the official presidential golf course remained open, while US veterans were denied access to the WWII and Vietnam Memorials because of the "shutdown". We heard how Michelle Obama's fitness website was kept functional while the national Amber Alert system was shut down (until protests intimidated Obama into finally turning the system back on).


But perhaps most ominous is that active US military Catholics are being denied Holy Mass. Using the government shutdown as his excuse, Obama saw - and took - the opportunity to aim his arrow at his most coveted target: Christians.


Catholic military chaplains are being denied access to military bases to say Mass supposedly because of the shutdown. Because the chaplains are paid contractors to perform Masses, Obama felt it was not a justifiable expense. The kicker though is that some priests are offering to say the Masses free of charge. Obama's response to their offer has been a resounding no. 


This happened recently to Father Ray Leonard, who serves at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia, but was not allowed to celebrate Mass this past weekend. Father Ray is contracted by the Defense Department to meet the spiritual needs of Catholics, but the chapel doors were locked with a sign affixed that said, “Shutdown: No Catholic service till further notice.” Protestant services on the naval base were allowed to continue, by the way - only Catholics were denied services, including marriage preparation, baptisms, confirmation and the like.

Father Leonard had this to say about it: “This is our church. Catholics have an expectation and obligation to attend Mass and we were told, ‘No you can’t go to church this week…“ My parishioners were upset. They were angry and dismayed. They couldn’t believe that in America they’d be denied access to Mass by the government.”

As a result of this astonishing attack on religious freedom, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Fr. Leonard, who served Tibetan populations in China for 10 years, informed the court in an affidavit; “In China, I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in China. I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do, and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community.”


On October 4, 2013, Fr. Leonard was ordered to stop performing all of his duties as the base’s Catholic Chaplain, even on a voluntary basis. He was also told that he could be arrested if he violated that order. The approximately 300 Catholic families served by Fr. Leonard at Kings Bay have been unable to attend Mass on base since the beginning of the shutdown. The nearest other church is about 16 miles away - not a feasible option for those on base without cars or whose extremely busy schedules do not permit the time it would take to walk 16 miles to Mass, attend it, and walk back.

Additionally, Fr. Leonard was locked out of his on-base office and the chapel. Fr. Leonard was also denied access to the Holy Eucharist and other articles of his Catholic faith. The order has caused the cancellation of daily and weekend mass, confession, marriage preparation classes and baptisms as well as prevented Fr. Leonard from providing the spiritual guidance he was called by his faith to provide
US Congressman Tim Huelskamp said, “Time and time again this Administration demonstrates it is waging a war against the very religious freedoms upon which America was founded. This is exactly why we worked to pass legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 58) this past weekend – to protect the religious liberties of all those who bravely serve in our Armed Forces."
What's particularly bad is that we would have to pass resolutions in America to restore the very rights upon which our country was founded - rights that President Obama does not believe we should have. The worst thing we could do is dismiss this action as an isolated incident that means nothing. On the contrary, this is an unmistakable move by Obama to advance his war on our religious liberties. And being that Obama has repeatedly shown hostility to Christians, this action against military Catholics -- much like the HHS mandate -- is direct government interference with our right to religious freedom. It's critical that we not lose sight of the fact that a country without that profound and fundamental right is not a free country at all.

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

UPDATE: Late yesterday afternoon, in response to the lawsuit, three attorneys from the Department of Justice contacted TMLC attorney Erin Mersino by phone and indicated that Father Leonard could resume all of his religious duties beginning this morning, and that the Chapel would be open for all Catholic activities.  These representations made by the Department of Justice attorneys were confirmed by orders to Father Leonard delivered through the Navy chain of command.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said, “The actions of the Federal Government were a blatant attack on religious liberty. I would never have imagined that our Government would ever bar Catholic Priest from saying Mass under threat of arrest and prevent Catholics from participating in their religious exercises.  Allowing the Chapel doors to open and Father Leonard to fulfill his priestly responsibilities does not erase the Constitutional violations that occurred.  We don’t want this to occur again the next time there is a government shutdown. Our lawsuit will continue.”


Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Democrats forced government shutdown - not Republicans

The Republicans have passed and submitted a budget bill that would have kept the government funded and running. They only asked in return that Democrats be willing to let go of their Obamacare subsidies and exemptions. The Democrats refused to do so. Every single Democrat voted last night to shut down the government. In fact, Democrats in the Senate have rejected every single offer Republicans presented to them (just like their leader, President Obama, who himself said he would not negotiate with Republicans on anything. He is, however, completely willing to negotiate with the leaders of Iran and Russia - just not fellow Americans - but I digress). The bottom line is that it's the Democrats' refusal to compromise with Republicans and to give up their precious subsidies and Obamacare exemptions that has forced the shutdown (subsidies that you and I don't get, by the way - only Congress and their staff are entitled to those, and they're happy to let us pay for them). Do not forget that.

Of course Democrats and President Obama are blaming the shutdown on Republicans. And of course, there will be plenty of uninformed Americans who will fall for the lies.


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

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

What's good about Obamacare?

Here are just a few reasons why Senator Ted Cruz and some others are valiantly fighting to protect us from the disastrous Obamacare: 
  • It is so bad that congressional staff are trying to exempt themselves from it (and lawmakers were just warned yesterday not to sign up for Obamacare yet until guidance is made available on how they can best pay for it. One suggestion is to have taxpayers pay it for them.).
  • It violates freedom of religion and conscience by requiring Christian businesses to pay for abortifacients.
  • It will send your tax dollars to healthcare providers who perform abortions.
  • It is the leading job-killer in America, as companies lay off workers because of its mandates and its costs. (Of course those who are desperate to defend Obamacare at any cost will blame this on "greedy" owners -- who are just trying to keep their businesses - and their employees' jobs - afloat.)
  • It is forcing companies to shift workers from full-time to part-time positions. (Ditto from above.)
  • It drives up the cost of healthcare premiums and deductibles, while limiting coverage.
  • Many doctors are already reporting limitations placed on them as to what they can do for their patients. For instance, a neurosurgeon recently made public the fact that under Obamacare, he is now being told by insurance companies who he can and cannot operate on. Before that decision was between him and his patients. Now it's being made by third-parties more interested in saving dollars than lives.
  • It violates your privacy by requiring that doctors ask - and report in the database - things like how often you have sex and how many people you are having sex with.
  • Insurance companies have already begun contacting their individual plan customers to let them know they are not allowed to keep their current plan (as President Obama promised would not happen). It happened to me, in fact. I was told I could not keep the plan I've had for years and that, if I wanted to stay with my current insurance provider, I had only one plan to choose from because, in the agent's own words, "It's the one that most closely matches up with the government health plan." Yet defenders continue to spread the lie that this is not a government takeover of our health system.
  • Under Obamacare, millions will still be without coverage, which was the whole point of forcing it on us in the first place
  • Obamacare's supposed greatest achievement is that it covers people with pre-existing conditions. That is like buying car insurance after you've had a major accident - which will only serve to send premiums skyrocketing as a result (and this will ultimately put insurance companies out of business altogether, which is Obamacare's main goal - so that we can then be forced into a single payer system like the UK -  a system the UK itself is desperately trying to move away from because of how bad it is). By the way, pre-existing coverage under Obamacare is not even necessarily true. Parents of children with special needs like autism, for example, are facing major restrictions on benefits.
  • Senior citizens' access to healthcare will be drastically cut as Medicare will be slashed to help pay for Obamacare. Many doctors are currently no longer accepting Medicare patients as a result. What are the elderly dependent on Medicare supposed to do? 
  • Doctors are increasingly voicing their concerns about their ability to treat patients under the confining strictures of Obamacare, and more and more are expressing plans to drop out of medicine altogether, which will only exacerbate physician shortages in America and increase wait times for getting an appointment to even see a doctor.
  • Approximately 20,000 new taxpayer-funded IRS agents are being hired to enforce Obamacare. Enough said.
  • Many unvetted, unscreened "navigators" have been hired by the Obama Administration to help manage the sign-up for Obamacare and its subsequent medical databases - which include not only highly sensitive information like medical history (and, of course, sexual activity), but risky information like social security numbers, home addresses, etc. In this age of identity theft, do you feel safe knowing your personal informaiton will be accessible to people who were hired without so much as a criminal background check? 
These are just some of the things that are wrong with Obamacare. The question is, is there anything good enough about it to trump what's bad about it? This is not a rhetorical question. If you're a fan of Obamacare, please let me know what you feel will be so good about it that it would justify everything that's wrong with it. I'd like to hear your thoughts. 

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

Friday, September 20, 2013

Democrats walk out on grieving families before Benghazi testimony. And Dems say they're the ones who care?

In a move that illustrates why the overwhelming majority of Americans have grown to despise partisan politics – and come to be understandably offended by the actions of the Left, Progressives and Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee executed – under the guise of protest – one of the most insensitive and disrespectful actions in the history of the United States House of Representatives. They staged a pre-planned and organized "walkout" before the testimonies of the families of those slaughtered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Those elected to office are sent to Washington to represent the whole of their constituencies, not just those with whom they agree. By staging this inarguably childish – and ultimately selfish – political theater, they have abdicated their responsibility to represent those with whom they disagree ideologically. This is an abdication of their obligation to the office; to their constituents. It is an action that even their supporters should abhor and, in fact, penalize them for.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/heartless-democrats-walk-testimony-families-fallen-benghazi/#gPKuAXwxeQcakMlu.99
Is it any wonder why more and more Americans are coming to despise the actions of the Left? In a move that shows just how heartless, cruel and dirty these liberals are, a large group of them committed one of the most disrespectful and despicable actions I have ever seen. They executed an organized "walkout" just as the families of those who were killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, were about to speak on behalf of their loved ones.

Aren't those elected to office supposed to represent all of their constituents, not just those with whom they agree? What these Democrats and Progressives did to these grieving families is nothing less than reprehensible, and all of us - including those who voted for them - should condemn them for it (especially since we all know President Obama certainly will not condemn them for it).

Here's the list of the heartless, cruel Democrats and Progressives who walked out on the families who were about to speak of their loved ones who gave their lives for our country in this covered-up attack (the same families, by the way, who have yet to receive any answers, let alone any response from Congress -- or from president-wannabe Hilary Clinton who famously and arrogantly said about the Benghazi murders, "What difference does it make?"):
  • Carolyn Maloney (P [Progressive]-NY)
  • Danny Davis (P-IL)
  • Eleanor Holmes Norton (P-DC)
  • Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)
  • Jim Cooper (D-TN)
  • John Tierney (P-MA)
  • Mark Pocan (P-WI)
  • Matt Cartwright (P-PA)
  • Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
  • Peter Welch (P-VT)
  • Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
  • Steven Horsford (P-NV)
  • Tammy Duckworth (P-IL)
  • Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
  • William Lacy Clay (D-MO)

As an aside, but certainly just as relevant, other would-be testifiers on Benghazi have been silenced and/or had their jobs stripped away for trying to tell the truth of what happened the night our US Consulate was attacked, while Obama simply went to bed upon hearing the news, rather than ordering help to the victims. And don’t forget, just last week our own Secretary of State John Kerry deliberately stopped the Benghazi families from even being questioned by Congress. 

It's amazing how excoriated President Nixon was for the Watergate scandal - which involved a break-in. Nobody died. Still, Nixon respected the office of the presidency enough to resign rather than subject the office to further degradation.

Not Obama though. This Administration -- which tries to admonish Republicans for not caring about people - is its own version of the Mafia and the actions of these Democrats is not only disgusting, but wholly un-American. The most sickening part is the Dems try to portray themselves as the ones "who care" about people, while the rest of us on the other side of the political aisle are accused of being heartless, uncaring oafs. Funny, I didn't see one Republican show the same disrespect to the Benghazi families by walking out on them as the Democrats blatantly demonstrated. Shame on every one of them.


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

Monday, September 16, 2013

Bitter obituary flies in the face of 'honor thy father and mother'

Making the rounds this past weekend was the scathing obituary that was published recently about a mother of eight. The obituary was written by her own adult children.

According to the kids, the mother was extremely abusive, to say the least. The woman's son said the obituary was written "without doubt to shame her" and in the obituary itself, the kids said they hope their mother will relive every detail of her cruelty in the afterlife.

While I'm very sad for any abuse the kids may have suffered, after hearing the obituary read out loud over the weekend, I commented that it seems to me that unfortunately it's the kids who will be the ones to relive every cruel detail as long as they hold onto their bitterness. I also expressed that we shouldn't speak ill of the dead, especially in such a public forum.

While my comments were basically interpreted as being judgmental, they were more a simple reference to God's directive to us to forgive one another if we want Him to forgive us for our own wrongdoings. God also gave us the Commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother." Of course that doesn't mean we need or should give false praise to anyone, even our own parents. But being that our parents are the vessels God chose to bring us into the world, it seems that publicly shaming and excoriating your own deceased mother - who is unable to defend herself - fails to keep that particular Commandment. The kids didn't need to shower her with praise in the obituary to keep this Commandment. In this case, not saying anything at all would have sufficed.

If anything, I would hope these children would pray that God will have mercy on their mother's soul -- not only because we should ask God to have mercy on everyone, including our enemies -- but also so that these kids may hope to receive His forgiveness for their own transgressions in life. At the very least, working on forgiveness in their own hearts may bring them the peace they so obviously need, a peace they won't obtain through vengeful, public shaming.

I pray God will bless and have mercy on that woman's soul, and I pray her children will seek God for the forgiveness and healing peace that only He can give.

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

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?*

Just about every action President Barack Obama has taken in the Middle East has somehow supported Muslim extremists and undermined Christians. He has spoken barely a word about the Christian persecution going on in Egypt and he didn't even express outrage at the murder of one of our ambassadors in Benghazi. Instead, he caught a flight to Vegas for a fundraiser right afterward, and has been covering up the murder ever since. It seems pointless to ask what his intentions are. My gut instinct is simply that the president's intentions for our nation's well being are not above board. Sorry, but I just haven't seen anything to change my mind.

And now he is virtually itching to attack Syria, embroiling us in yet another Middle East skirmish. I have been suspicious of Obama's motives on this from the start. Take this how you will, but I wanted to share an article written about the chemical attacks in Syria that sheds light on some odd and disturbing bits of evidence that are coming to the surface. I simply don't trust this administration and information such as is offered in the following article does nothing to mitigate the doubts I have. Maybe I'm hoping someone can offer evidence that would make me change my mind. I'd love to be able to believe in my president.

Read:
*Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

Mounting evidence raises questions about Syrian chemical weapon attack





Thursday, August 29, 2013

More liberal hypocrisy: Attacking Syria ok, but not Iraq

Despite the fact that both houses of Congress and the U.N.  passed resolutions in favor of going to war with Iraq, liberals have been trying to convince us ever since that George W. Bush started the war illegally. But now that President Obama needs to save face (thanks to his “red line in the sand” threat last year regarding Syria) he is in the process of committing the US to unilateral military action in Syria without consent from Congress or the UN. Of course, liberals are cheering him all the way.

They conveniently forget (or assume we will forget) that in 2007, then Senator Obama said to a Boston Globe reporter, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” 

And also in 2007, Vice President Joe Biden said, “the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.”

Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “undeniable evidence” that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. But no evidence of this has been found. In fact, the U.N. doesn’t know who did what to whom and is now pleading with Obama to hold off on taking any action for now. But it seems Obama is willing to make the situation worse just for the sake of showing some mishapen form of a backbone. As of now, he is just waiting for U.N. teams to leave Syria to make his move - without Congress, without ally support (e.g. Britain just backed out) and without even talking to the American people about it.

Obama is saying that, on grounds of humanity, he has a moral imperative for taking action against Syria. If that's the case, then he'd have even more reason to support our having gone into Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had killed hundreds of thousands of people, including his own brother-in-law, whom he personally ordered to have killed in a wood chipper...feet first. 

But beyond any moral reasons, Syria is embroiled in a civil war, which has no bearing on our national security whatsoever. And unlike Hussein, who was removed from power by our actions, Syria's Assad would remain in power and the rebels most likely behind the gas attacks in Syria would be emboldened further.

In all of this, Obama is hoping we won’t notice one other obvious thing (in addition to the clear un-constitutionality of this should he try to act without permission): that by taking military action against Syria, Obama would be joining forces with al-Qaeda - who is a bitter enemy of Syria. In other words, the very people who murdered so many thousands of Americans on 9/11 will be receiving our help to attack one of their other enemies.

Of course the mainstream media will not point out these things. They also won’t have the intellectual honesty to ask a key question: if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? We had congressional support -including Hilary Clinton's, John Kerry's and Joe Biden's "yes" votes -- to go into Iraq. Obama is now courting Congress to get support for his  desire to attack Syria. If he does not receive this approval - and he shouldn't - the question remains whether he will act anyway. 

Whether Obama receives permission or not, I wonder if Obama supporters will stop excoriating Bush for going into Iraq. We'll see. And if Obama does strike against Syria --without approval from Congress -- then, in Biden's own words, we should "move to impeach him." 

Regardless of what happens, all of this illuminates the pressing need for our own country to gain energy independence. The fewer reasons we have to be embroiled in the Middle East, the better. For some reason though, Obama seems a bit too interested in being involved and for all the wrong reasons.

Read:
Did the White House help plan the Syrian chemical attack? 





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

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

We shouldn't have to sue government for our own rights

This past Friday, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction banning the enforcement of the HHS Mandate in a lawsuit filed by The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  TMLC filed the lawsuit on behalf of two brothers, Shaun and Michael Willis, one a Catholic and the other a Protestant, and their family-owned law firm, Willis Law, located in Kalamazoo, MI.

The lawsuit is one of several legal challenges the TMLC has mounted on behalf of committed Christians in direct opposition to the HHS Mandate promulgated by the Obama Administration.  The HHS Mandate, which refers to a set of regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services, forces employers to include coverage for abortion and abortion inducing pharmaceuticals as well as related counseling and education as part of employer sponsored health care plans, regardless of any moral or religious objections that the employer may have.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “This case is about the religious freedom of Christians to peaceably practice their faith free from government coercion.  In direct violation of one of America’s founding principles, the Federal Government knowingly forces those who believe in the sanctity of human life to choose between following the law and following their conscience.”  In this particular case, the Department of Justice did not oppose TMLC’s motion for the entry of the Preliminary Injunction.

Both Shaun and Michael Willis are devout pro-life Christians with a deep religious conviction that abortion and abortifacients are gravely immoral practices which result in the destruction of innocent life.

Prior to the HHS Mandate, the Willis brothers were able to exclude coverage for abortion and abortifacients. However, these exclusions now put the Willis Brothers in violation of the HHS Mandate; a violation that would have cost them over half a million dollars in fines per year had they not obtained an injunction. The preliminary injunction now allows the Willis Brothers to continue providing health insurance to their employees that is in not in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs and conscience.

For the Willis brothers, being forced by the government to fund, promote and assist others in obtaining services which destroy innocent life is tantamount to being a participant in a gravely immoral practice.

The Willis brothers’ Christian values are evident in their support for multiple faith- based organizations including Kalamazoo Right to Life, Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center, and Young Life Kalamazoo.

The lawsuit claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act while also challenging the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech and the Establishment Clause.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas Perez, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Jack Lew, Secretary of the Department of Treasury; and their respective departments. 
[Source: TMLC] 

As long as women have legal access to contraception and abortion on their own, should anyone be forced against their beliefs to provide these things to women? Not in a free country, they shouldn’t. The question is, are we still a free country?


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