Church bans heterosexual marriage to protest ban on gay 'marriage'

A Methodist church in North Carolina has decided to stop marrying straight couples until the state and the Methodists in general officially recognize homosexual “marriage.” Green Street Church's announcement said:

“On the matter of same-sex marriage, Green Street UMC sees injustice in the legal position of state government and the theological position of our denomination. North Carolina prohibits same-sex marriage and all the rights and privileges marriage brings. The Leadership Council has asked that their ministers join others who refuse to sign any State marriage licenses until this right is granted to same-sex couples. Because the United Methodist Church prohibits its pastors from conducting same-sex weddings, excluding gay and lesbian couples from the holy sacrament of marriage, the Leadership Council has asked the pastor to refrain from conducting wedding ceremonies in our sanctuary for straight couples, until the denomination lifts its ban for same-sex couples.”

Putting aside the fact that the "holy sacrament of marriage" is, by Biblical standards, reserved for a union of one man and one woman only, it's interesting how certain people are allowed to discriminate as long as it's packaged in a pretty politically correct bow. Law-abiding citizens are being sued for refusing their photography services at same-sex "weddings", or declining to rent an apartment to same-sex couples. But Green Street UMC can openly discriminate against heterosexual couples and it's okay, because it's in the name of "fairness." The ACLU and the leftist media are remarkably silent on this type of discrimination.

Once again, the sound of hypocrisy is deafening. Unfortunately it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

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

God bless Pope Francis I!

The Holy Father just extended to the world his blessing and asked us for his prayers. Please pray for Pope Francis I in all his intentions as he leads the Catholic faithful going forward.

Viva il Papa!

Why the death of Hugo Chavez matters*

*I thought the following article was interesting and wanted to share it. It's from the Heritage Foundation's 'The Morning Bell':

Tears streamed down the face of Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro yesterday as he announced that longtime Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez was dead. The news likely came as a surprise to no one—Chavez had been battling cancer for years and was long thought to be on his deathbed. In fact, the Venezuelan leader had not been seen in public since December.

Though not unexpected, Chavez’s death has far-reaching—and potentially dangerous—implications for the U.S. and the world.

Addressing the nation, Maduro called on the Venezuelan people to rally together in the spirit of “love, peace, and discipline,” proclaiming, “Let there be no weakness, no violence. Let there be no hate.” Interestingly, this came from the same man who just three hours earlier made irresponsible and dangerous claims that Chavez’s poor health was caused by deliberate acts of the regime’s enemies. 

Further implicating the U.S., Maduro also expelled American military attaché David Delmonaco from the country, charging him with engaging in “destabilizing projects” against the regime.

Because they are outlandish to our ears, these claims may seem inconsequential. Yet in Venezuela, these ridiculous assertions threaten to take a dangerous situation from bad to worse.

It may be hard for many Americans to understand, but despite the sometimes brutal and authoritarian nature of the Chavez regime, the Venezuelan leader’s passing will be a difficult moment for the nation. Ruling Venezuela for 14 years, Chavez’s unique combination of populism, authoritarianism, socialism, and combativeness allowed him to build nothing less than a cult of personality. Bolstered undoubtedly by a system of socialist subsidies and political patronage, Chavez enjoyed the adoration of the masses.

With the nation already in mourning, the outrageous and provocative statements of Vice President Maduro have the potential to spark strong anti-American violence in Venezuela like that seen throughout the Middle East late last year.

As Heritage Latin America expert Ray Walser wrote yesterday:

The Obama Administration needs to act swiftly and sternly to rebut this outlandish claim, rally international support, and prepare to protect American lives and property, as well as that of innocent Venezuelans.

Factor in the country’s known ties to major U.S. enemies—namely Hezbollah and Iran—and the situation may develop into the first major foreign policy crisis for newly confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry.

Indeed, the threat of Iranian influence in Latin America is nothing new. In October 2011, two Iranian nationals were indicted in an attempt to bomb a D.C.-area restaurant and assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil. The men were caught trying to hire a Mexican drug cartel member to carry out the assassination. While Venezuela has never been directly implicated in the plot, with daily flight between Tehran and Caracas, Venezuela remains Iran’s critical entry point into the Americas.

While Chavez declared Maduro his successor before his death, the Venezuelan constitution requires that an election be held within 30 days. Former presidential candidate and democratic opposition leader Henrique Capriles is likely to run against Maduro. The Obama Administration should signal to Venezuela that anything other than free and fair elections for the nation’s new president will open the door to possible diplomatic and economic sanctions.

Regardless of who wins, the road ahead will be difficult. The nation’s new leader will inherit a nation plagued by over-dependence on oil revenues and stagnant industry, not to mention high inflation, currency devaluation, and extremely high levels of homicide and criminal violence.

Chavez may be dead, but his anti-American spirit and the damage caused by his sweeping socialist policies are not. In the days and weeks to come, both newly confirmed Secretary of State Kerry and the next president of Venezuela will have many challenges on their hands.

Poking holes in Obama's Chicken Little scare-tactics on spending cuts

Two days ago, President Barack Obama labeled the automatic budget cuts about to take effect as "dumb" and "unnecessary" -- and then blamed Republicans for the failure to avert them. The funny thing is (well, actually there is nothing funny about this) but Barack Obama himself is the one who conceived the plan in the first place. So in other words, the original spending cuts - all paltry $85 billion of them - were Obama's idea and now he's trying to blame it on the Republicans. Can we call that leadership?

Now he's crying that this meaningless - and I do mean meaningless - cut in spending will destroy America. Jobs will be lost, seniors will lose medical care, children will starve to death. These are all basically the charges our supposed leader has put forth in his scare-tactic rhetoric in the past few weeks. Is this really how a president is supposed to lead - by terrifying Americans? What's worse is that his Chicken Little fear mongering is all based on lies.

The spending cuts in question are, even taken at face value, absolutely nothing compared to what we spend daily. What Obama is so hysterical about is less than a drop in the bucket and will do nothing to harm us. In fact, the cuts are so small, they won't even really help us. On top of it, the cuts are really more about an agreement not to spend as much as the president would have liked. That's like saying you were going to spend $100 on new shoes, but decided to spend only $80, so now you're claiming that you reduced spending by $20. It's all a sham.

What's particularly galling is that Obama wants to increase spending - and wants to get the money from us through new tax increases in addition to the ones he just got from us on Jan. 1, 2013. Democrats are carrying the torch for Obama saying that the prosperity of the late 1990s was because of Clinton's tax hikes, so that's why we need them again now to spur our current economy.

But what was successful about Clinton's terms in office had to do with his spending cuts, not his tax hikes. In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue.  Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points.  Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform. That's what turned things around for the economy.

Obama cannot remotely claim that he has done the same. In fact, what Obama hopes none of us knows is that 2012 was the fourth consecutive year with a trillion-dollar-plus deficit. Total federal debt has surpassed $16 trillion, and federal spending  hit the $3.6 trillion mark in 2012.

Of course, people love to blame all this on George W. Bush. It's true that Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn’t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years. 

But just looking at government websites on spending, Obama hiked federal spending by 3.5 points in just his first term. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, which has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents.

Despite this utterly insane spending - which Obama wants to increase -  he says there are no places we can cut meaningful spending without obliterating America.

Oh, really? What if we at least started by cutting some of these programs:

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture spends $200 million a year to help trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India because it advertised U.S. cotton.
• The Environmental Protection Agency spent $141,450 to fund a Chinese study on swine manure, and gave $1.2 million to the U.N. for clean fuel promotion.
• The government spent $10 million for algae harvesting.
• The federal government spent $325,000 on a robotic squirrel named "RoboSquirrel" to study how a rattlesnake would react to it.
• An airport in Oklahoma receives one flight per month, has zero planes based there, and is located just a couple miles from two more heavily used airports, but the federal government spends $450,000 a year to keep it open.
• $2.5 billion a year is wasted on food stamps used to buy alcohol, cigarettes and fast-food despite the fact they are intended to be used to make sure hungry kids get healthful meals.
• $27 million was spent to study the competitiveness of Morocco, including funding Moroccan pottery classes to see how well they'd do in the market.
• The government pays as much as $2 million annually in monthly service fees to maintain about 28,000 phantom grant accounts that are empty and have expired.
• $947,000 was spent to study recipes for pizza and about 100 other foods that could one day be served on Mars.
• While too many Americans are struggling just to put basic food staples on their table, the federal government spent $300,000 in 2012 to promote the caviar market.
• The federal government has earmarked over $9 million to a failing for-profit ferry verging on bankruptcy, which very few people benefitted from and a small town in Alaska did not want. Privately owned competitors are suffering economically because of this.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. While our president, the one who was supposed to unite and lead us, carries on his toddler-esque tantrums about the end of the world, his demands for endless spending, if granted, will only expedite the end of America. And while the federal government continues to threaten our currency value through the constant printing of new money, we better not get complacent about things. Yet you can be assured that any fallout from Obama's disastrous spending and other policies will be blamed on someone else.

It's time Obama's followers open their eyes and recognize that the absolutely worst type of administrator is the one who recommends utterly reckless policies, and then blames those under him for the consequences. There is an old saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Obama is certainly not leading. He is not setting good examples and he is not being faithful to the oath of office he took to protect and preserve America.

He is, however, leading the country to ruin, and all he can say is that it's someone else's fault. I don't know what exactly to call that, but I wouldn't call it leadership.

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

State allows boys in schoolgirls' bathrooms. Freaked out girls will face punishment.

Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling middle and high school transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice. According to the Dept. of Education, transgender students are those whose assigned birth sex does not match their “internalized sense of their gender.”

Schools will now be required to accept a student’s gender identity on face value.

“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every or almost every other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate. They go on to say, "The responsibility for determing a student's gender identity rests with the student. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student's gender identity is that student himself or herself."

In other words, any red-blooded, hormone-driven teenaged boy can simply say he feels like a girl, and, according to the directives, the school will be required to allow him to hang out in the girls' locker room while they are showering after gym class. And here's the best part. Any female student objecting to this would be shown "firm disapproval and possible discipline" for not "affirming or supporting" her "transgender" classmate.

The 11-page directive also urges schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities – like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom.

Does anyone wonder why homeschooling is becoming increasingly popular in America?

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

Responsible spending cuts will return America to slavery, Texas representative warns

While President Obama read his State of the Union address earlier this week, he told us that spending cuts would devastate important government functions and destroy hundreds of jobs (just like his proposed $9 minimum wage would do, but I digress). Wasting no time to agree, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), took it a step further saying that reducing the size of government would be equal to enslaving America again. To her, the more the government spends, the more “free” America is.

In response to proposed spending cuts, Jackson Lee recently said, “Yesterday was the official birthday of President Lincoln, February 12^th, and although it was a tragic time in our history, I can assure you that it showed the greatest promise of America when people could come together and do something great. I stand here as a freed slave because this congress came together. Are we going to be able to do it today to free America?”

A “freed slave”? Considering that would make Ms. Jackson Lee at least about 150 years old, she looks pretty good, but I digress again.

If the currently proposed spending cuts do occur, they would total about $44 billion, which is 1.2% of 2013 spending, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. That’s nothing when you consider our government spends just under $10 billion a day.

Our spending – and borrowing - are so out of control that to continue this way is what will enslave us to the government because only through basic slavery in the form of punishing taxation could we even begin to manage the debt we’re creating.  As it stands, the government takes in obscene amounts of money through taxation and still we have a record and equally obscene deficit. Spending less will not enslave anyone, it will make us more free.

Would Jackson Lee have supported Obama when he said, as a senator, that the humongous spending habits and continuous debt ceiling raises of Washington were irresponsible and even unpatriotic (his exact word)? How come now that Obama is president, he has flip-flopped on his view of reckless spending and continues to want to raise the debt ceiling -- and anyone against this, according to Jackson Lee, is pro-slavery?

The hypocrisy and offensiveness of this current government are endless.

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

Is desire to avoid pregnancy the same as having leukemia? To Sandra Fluke, yes.

Just when we thought it was safe to turn on a news show without seeing the poster child for handouts with her hand out, Sandra Fluke is back. Fluke, in case anyone could forget, is the one who believes we the taxpayers should pay for her birth control pills. She even pleaded for contraceptive freebies on the national stage when she spoke at the Democratic National Convention demanding her rights to behave sexually as she pleases, while wanting us to pay for the prevention -- or termination -- of any ensuing pregnancy.

Now Fluke is voicing her concerns that the Obama Administration might actually recognize our conscience rights and repeal the HHS mandate that forces all employers to provide for contraceptive and abortifacient coverage despite personal religious objections. To Fluke, that would be a bad thing because she says such exemptions to contraception coverage could be abused by employers to deny coverage for things like leukemia. In other words, in Fluke's world, avoiding pregnancy is on the same par as deadly diseases.

In a recent interview on MSNBC, Fluke said, “I think what it is important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern and they want to be able deny their employees particular types of healthcare. Now if you take a step back and think about that, that’s, you know, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to."

First, being a private employer in a non-religiously affiliated business does not mean the employer does not have the right to live his religious beliefs. Second, since when is preventing pregnancy on par with something like leukemia? Most married women I know strive to get pregnant - or take responsible precautions not to become pregnant if the time's not right. Not one person I know anywhere strives to get leukemia, nor has anyone I'm aware of been able to control whether they get the dreadful disease.

But above all, Ms. Fluke, if you want to fool around to your heart's content, it's none of my business. But respect my private religious conscience rights and keep my wallet out of your bedroom activities, please. Your desire to not be pregnant is neither my concern nor my responsibility.

It's funny  how often we hear so-called feminists demand the government keep its hands off their bodies, but they sure have no problem using the government to get us all involved in their private activities when it suits them.

As for comparing the desire to prevent a life-affirming miracle like pregnancy to something lethal like leukemia, Ms. Fluke should be ashamed of herself. Unfortunately, she has proven time and again that shame is one condition from which she does not suffer.

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