Boy Scouts forfeit rights to appease radical homosexuals

The Boy Scouts of America  (BSA) caved to pressure last week and voted to allow openly gay youths to join the organization. People from all over are celebrating the decision, including some Christians. What the celebrants don't realize though is that the loser in this is America (and ultimately her citizens), because another nail in our country's coffin has just been pounded in.

People are calling this a victory because the BSA's decision purportedly reflects the inclusion and diversity that our country is supposed to represent. Our country does reflect those values, arguably more so than any country on earth. But our country is also supposed to represent freedom. The freedom of association. The freedom of assembly. The freedom of religion.

Pressuring private groups to associate with those who don't reflect their own values - in this case those who practice the sin of homosexuality - is not American. In fact, it is actually denying the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The BSA - and any private group - has the right to define its membership standards. But somewhere along the line the BSA decided that homosexuals' demands are more important than a private group's freedom to assemble as it sees fit.

Not surprisingly, homosexual activists said the BSA decision is a start, but that it doesn't go far enough. They want the BSA to allow openly gay Boy Scout leaders, too. And of course, the BSA will have to, because how will it justify allowing a youth to join despite his homosexuality, and then deny that same person the right to become a leader because of his homosexuality? The BSA has backed itself into a corner and is now forced to lie in the bed it has made.

Those applauding the BSA decision because "inclusivity is the Christian thing to do" -- as some are saying -- are missing the point. Christians are absolutely called to love the sinner, but reject the sin. The Bible tells Christians homosexuality is a sin. As believers, the Christian thing to do is to lead people away from sin, not encourage a sinful lifestyle in the politically correct, misleading name of inclusion. And forcing people to deny their beliefs in the name of inclusivity is not a loving, Christian thing to do in itself.

The BSA oath pledges fidelity to God, an oath steeped in principles with which many Christians can identify, which may be why so many Christians have historically been drawn to the Boy Scouts of America. That homosexuality is seen as a sin by many Christians, and that the BSA up until now denied membership to those who openly embrace homosexuality, could be seen as based on religious-based principles. That radical homosexuals would force themselves on the BSA in the name of fairness and inclusivity effectively labels religion, by extension, as non-inclusive and non-fair.

Think of the precedent set here by that. The BSA has agreed that certain Christian-based ethics must take a back seat to the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality, as if Christianity itself is in the wrong. How long before every institution will be pressured to forfeit its beliefs to the activists? In fact, how long before they are forced to by law?

Why the sexuality of children should even be brought into play in the first place, by the way, is beyond me. It's just another sign of how far our culture has fallen. The BSA will probably lose membership and financial support because of its decision to play into the hands of this fallen culture, and it deserves to. Had it stood up to the homosexuals it may have lost funding from some corporate and private sponsors, but I firmly believe it would have made up the difference from a resurgent base of support from those who would have appreciated the BSA standing its ground.

Instead one more American institution has fallen by the wayside because, blinded by the glaring light of political correctness, it lost sight of its rights as a private group to assemble freely. As for the homosexuals who are clamoring for tolerance, it would be nice if they practiced some tolerance of their own and allow private citizens to live and let live. After all, nobody is preventing homosexuals from forming their own groups that exclude heterosexuals if they so desire. And to those who will undoubtedly say this issue is about hating homosexuals, I simply say, try again. Wanting to uphold biblical principles and beliefs is not hateful. Accusing someone falsely of hate for the sake of advancing an agenda is what seems hateful.

This issue is not about hate, but about love for and a desire to preserve freedoms for everyone, keeping in mind that forced inclusion is not freedom. We are facing a steadfast encroachment on our freedoms here in America, and unless we protect the freedom of all, then freedom will be lost for all. That is too high a price to pay for the sake of appeasement in the name of political correctness.

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

Liberals blame Oklahoma tornado on global warming hoax

While bodies are still being recovered amid thousands of destroyed homes in Moore, Oklahoma, the liberals are taking to heart their mantra about not letting a good crisis go to waste.

As Glenn Thrush of Politico put in a Twitter post shortly after the tornado this week, “It is striking that Oklahoma’s senators are 1) a federal spending skeptic and 2) global warming denier.” And Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor shortly afterward to chastise his Republican colleagues for denying global warming. In fact, he spent 15 minutes mocking those states that seek federal assistance in the wake of natural disasters.

“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

The only problem with Whitehouse's dramatic posturing is that global warming is not the reason for any of the issues he cited. Even the scientists who were paid lots of money to convince us of global warming exposed in a series of emails a couple years ago that the entire notion of global warming is a hoax.

Yet politicians continue to insist that it's real. They have to, though, because how else can they justify increasing our taxes and controlling our ways of life? And disasters like the Oklahoma tornado or "Hurricane" Sandy (which was not even a category one storm when it hit the shore) are the perfect crises to justify liberal politicians' extremist agenda to oversee everything we do while they travel in their private jets and ride around in their chauffeur-driven SUVs funded by our ever increasing tax dollars.

Besides the fact that hurricane and tornado activity is actually down in comparison to past years, maybe we should look at any such disaster not as a consequence of how we treat the environment, but rather as a reminder that God is ultimately in charge, not us.

No amount of taxes or legislation can ever change that fact, no matter how hard the liberals try to deny it.

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

Scandals and denial keep growing on Obama's watch

From the moment then-presidential candidate Barack Obama confessed he felt the Constitution was "out of date", he's proven time and again that the rule of law just doesn't seem to matter. And looking at the growing list of scandals since he's been in office, it seems he has no intention of changing.

From the Fast and Furious supply of U.S. guns to Mexican drug lords which were then used to kill Americans, unconstitutional changes to the Welfare Reform Act, denying citizens' right to practice their religious beliefs and beyond, the list appears to have no end.

For one, we have the cover-up in the deadly attacks on U.S. citizens at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Not only were requests for more security leading up to the attacks denied, but desperate calls for help during the attacks were turned down by our own government. Still, Obama's administration clung to the pathetic excuse that the attacks were prompted by a stupid YouTube video that purportedly mocked Islam. The creator of that film sits in jail as we speak, while Hilary Clinton is telling us to get over the murders in Benghazi. After all, it was several months ago, she points out.

What she easily sweeps under the rug is the demotion of the military leader who tried to expose the Obama administration's refusal to send aid. Other whistle blowers have received similar scorn by Obama and his ilk. The family members of those murdered, as well as U.S. citizens everywhere, deserve to know why we allowed our own service members and an ambassador to sit in deadly peril while Obama caught a flight to Vegas for a party in his own honor.

Now this week we find that the IRS has been intentionally targeting private citizens because of their political affiliations since at least 2011. It has admitted that it searched applications for tax exemption for words like “Tea Party”, "Constitution" and even “patriot.” Once it found those groups, it made intrusive and unconstitutional inquiries, like requesting their reading lists, donor information, and Facebook posts, and demanded answers “upon penalty of perjury.” The IRS then shared the info they collected with non-government groups, including the George Soros-funded ProPublica. ProPublica then distributed the information to left-leaning (aka mainstream) media outlets who used the information to write stories about the "bigoted, racist, intolerant" right-leaning groups. By the way, in this time period since 2011, every single left-leaning group applying for tax exemption status received it. Over 500 "Tea Party" group applications for tax exemption were denied.

Obama is wagging his finger at the IRS agents guilty of this unconstitutional breach of law, yet seems uncommitted to doing anything about it. Where our president refuses to call for absolute punitive action and denies knowing anything about it, let's hope Congress makes up for it, because we should be very worried when we learn that the Internal Revenue Service, the most feared and powerful of all federal agencies, spies on and harasses conservative organizations with the obvious intention of shutting down their funding so that they can’t speak out against an ever-encroaching federal government. The IRS' actions are putting all our freedoms of association, assembly, expression and speech at stake, making us look increasingly more like a country under Stalin.

Also revealed this week is the unprecedented intrusion of privacy when the Justice Department was caught obtaining records listing outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of Associated Press reporters and various AP offices. In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. Even some Democrats are weighing in on the danger of a government that completely ignores the First Amendment as has been demonstrated by our own Justice Department. But Obama - and his professional lackey Jay Carney - are busy waving this one off as well.

Incredibly, despite these egregious actions under Obama's watch, I am still hearing Obama defenders wave off these serious infractions of law and instead, as always, blame George W. Bush as the author of all things wrong in this country. First of all, that one's getting old to the point of being laughable. But if Obama defenders actually believe Bush should be held accountable for his actions - whatever it is they feel it is Bush did so wrong - then shouldn't they hold Obama to the same standard as president? If it's unacceptable for one president to do something "wrong", then it should be unacceptable for any president to do something wrong. And Obama has clearly overseen so much wrongdoing in our country that it boggles the mind.

So why do liberals continue to give him a pass? One reason is because the media continue to give Obama a pass. The media may be reporting on these incidents, but not in any way I see that condemns Obama for overseeing these infractions. Can you imagine if it were IRS agents under Bush targeting progressive groups for scrutiny? Or if Bush had simply gone to bed upon finding out our consulate in Benghazi was under attack and then headed for Vegas the next day for some fun? The media would have crucified Bush and his detractors would have called for his impeachment over the very things they're giving Obama a pass on. But unless the media tell Obama defenders that his actions are bad, his defenders will go on supporting him no matter how despicable his actions are.

What is happening under Obama's administration is serious and not the place for games. Not only Obama's actions, but the conciliatory dismissal of his actions, are helping to move our country farther and farther away from being a nation of law, and it is the rule of law precisely that has made our nation so great. We need to put blind, media-driven "loyalty politics" aside and we need to do it now before Obama completely squanders our nation's foundation and freedoms.

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

Who should we fear more...terrorists or Christians?

How far is the left willing to go in ignoring evil while condemning that which is good? Judging by the fact that terrorists with jihadist ties and practitioners of infanticide are being treated with kid gloves -- while Christians and pro-lifers get tackled – it seems there’s no limit.

When the bombs went off at the Boston Marathon last month, the mainstream media instantly began speculating that Christian right wingers, Tea Party members, or some other type of conservative ideology must be to blame.

But when it came to light that the two suspected bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, were professed Muslims with possible jihadist leanings, the media clammed up, and instead of denouncing radical Islam, began looking for ways to rationalize the bombers’ actions, to the point of portraying them merely as “impressionable young boys” and even trying to put blame on the United States and Israel.

The Administration itself seems determined as well to protect the surviving bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Despite suspected jihadist ties, Tsarnaev will be tried in civilian rather than military court and was quickly read his Miranda rights, effectively shutting down any hopes of getting information about potential accomplices or other terrorist plots. On top of it, Tsarnaev was charged only with using a weapon of mass destruction, when he could have – and should have – been charged with much worse.

Instead, because Tsarnaev became a U.S. citizen on Sept. 11, 2012, the White House won’t even allow him to be considered an enemy combatant. But if there’s even a chance Tsarnaev attacked out of hatred for America – and the evidence shows the chance is pretty good -- it makes him at least a potential enemy combatant. It would also make him a traitor. So why the gentle treading and the rush to protect Tsarnaev from these labels?

It likely has to do with Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that we’re even in a war with radical Islam in the first place. His foreign policy has consistently enabled virulently anti-American Islamic regimes to take hold in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt. Elsewhere, Obama’s utter passivity with the Christmas Day “underwear bomber”, the Fort Hood shootings, and the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi renders him missing in action in the war on terror.

Truth be told, he can barely stand to use the word. In 2010, Obama had our National Security Strategy replace the term "Islamic terrorism" with "violent extremism." And though he did initially refer to the Boston bombings as an act of terrorism, it was only to the extent that the bombs terrorized the people there. Since then, however, despite information that has come to light about the Tsarnaev brothers’ ties to radical Islam, Obama has neither associated the suspect with terrorism nor meaningfully acknowledged radical Islamic terrorist threats. This is all in keeping with his head-in-the-sand, politically correct approach to terrorism since taking office.

While our president walks on egg shells so as not to offend terrorists, he allows the trampling of Christian freedoms here in America. Case in point, he supports Pentagon efforts to purge Christianity from the military and is allowing a Southern Baptist website to be blocked on some military bases because it supposedly includes "hostile content" about Christian biblical teachings. Also permitted are the Army briefing that labels evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics as religious extremists, and the Homeland Security proclamation that lists Christians and pro-life groups as potential national security threats.

The list goes on. But Obama is fine with such blatant intolerance and persecuting of innocent Christians. It’s admitting that radical Islamic terrorism is an actual clear and present danger in America that he has a problem with.

Shifting gears, it’s not just terrorism that’s getting the brush-off. A barely reported-on murder trial has been underway against Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who faces charges of first degree murder in several deaths of newborn babies and third degree murder in the death of one of his abortion clients.

Several of Gosnell's former employees have testified under oath how babies were routinely born alive after surviving Gosnell's "abortion" method, where he would snip the babies’ spinal cords. Witnesses described seeing newborns “breathing, writhing, screeching”, and, in one horrifying case, “flailing about in a toilet trying to get out.” The nightmarish testimony – the kind that would be dismissed as propaganda if coming from a pro-life person – gets barely a yawn from the press, and no mention whatsoever by our president.

In fact, speaking at a recent event for America’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood – which itself refuses to condemn Gosnell or the many other abortionists committing infanticide in our country– Obama praised Planned Parenthood, made no reference to Gosnell, and avoided the word abortion (another word he cannot bear to say), instead referring to it as "choice."

The president did, however, have choice words for pro-life people, angrily accusing them of wanting to “turn the clock back” against safe and legal abortions (like the ones Gosnell performs?). Obama then assured Planned Parenthood of his continued support (with our tax dollars) and closed his speech with, “God bless you, Planned Parenthood.”

Obama didn’t see fit to comment on Gosnell’s house of horrors, but sure got his ire up for those who want to save babies’ and women’s lives from the disgusting, dirty and deadly abortion industry.

 We are facing perilous times but our president wants to make nice with terrorists and abortionists, while singling out those who want to protect life and profess Christian teachings as the ones to fear and deplore. That’s a dangerous reversal of truth, and we need to get real about it. As long as our leaders continue chasing down harmless people while ignoring the actual roots of evil, not only will Christians’ freedoms continually diminish, but we will all be made sitting ducks to evil’s pernicious and ever-expanding presence in our lives.

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

Feminists do an about-face...they now want women to be sex objects

Any youngster enrolled in a public school across America is not allowed to take so much as an aspirin for a headache without going through the school nurse. In fact, a student cannot even have aspirin in her possession without risking punishment by most schools unless she has written permission from a healthcare provider.

But after relentless lobbying, pushing and battling by feminists and others on the left, the FDA now says 15 year-old girls can go to any store and get the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill without prescription or parental permission -- or even their parents' knowledge. This actually only partially complies with a judge who wanted to lift all age restrictions on Plan B to make it available to everyone.

The age limit was previously 17 years of age, but this wasn't good enough for feminists. They want girls to be younger and younger when they begin sexual activity and want them to have all the pills and procedures available to help them "deal" with any possible pregnancy that ensues.

Of course the abortion and population control groups which seek to promote Plan B ignore the scientifically-proven risks of levonorgestrel (the sole active ingredient of Plan B). These well-documented adverse side effects include significant weight gain (on average 15 pounds), depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, and death.

While these risks are multiplied with increased use, the advocates of Plan B promote its increased, frequent, and repeated use, as if it's nothing more than candy.

Even the notorious abortion promoter, David A Grimes, MD, who was once a presenter for Plan B’s manufacturer, acknowledged in a 2002 interview that Plan B use has a serious negative effect on a woman’s menstrual cycle, about which he said, "Repeated use of EC wreaks havoc.”

Clearly, over-the-counter distribution of Plan B to girls too young to be trusted with an aspirin at school would invite misuse and overdose. Still, advocates for the drug assured the FDA that it's  completely safe with “no potential for overdose…”

No doubt, the greatest risk of Plan B is loss of human life. But what does that matter as long as women get to exercise their "choice" of sexual behavior and its consequences? And what better way to further demolish the family by separating young girls from parental influence?

The women's movement was once predicated on the demand that women be seen as more than sexual objects. How sad that sexuality is the only thing by which today's feminists seem to value and define women.

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