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

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

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

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

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

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

ISIS terrorist camps and illegal immigrant surges. Fun times ahead...

                       
Following the news that a confirmed ISIS terrorist camp is active just miles from El Paso, TX, today we learn that more than 3,000 unaccompanied illegal alien minors crossed the U.S. southern border last month as 2015 shapes up to be the second-largest "surge" year for border crashers.

Despite the Obama administration's empty assurances of immigration "enforcement," the number of incoming illegals suggests a different story, as The Washington Times reports. For the first six months of this fiscal year, authorities report collaring 15,647 children traveling without parents and 13,911 "family units."

                          

Although the numbers are down from 2014, "These statistics show that the surge of illegal arrivals from Central America was never really over," says Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Experts attribute the problem to certain "pull factors" enabled by the Obama administration -- such as allowing children from Central America to be released rather than being immediately shipped back to their native countries. And once released, more than 60 percent fail to show up for their immigration hearings, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Then there's Obama's unilateral amnesty for 5 million illegals. Even though it has been idled by a court injunction, alien interlopers assume it's now easier to obtain work permits and Social Security numbers, says Adolfo F. Franco, formerly with the U.S. Agency for International Development. He's right, of course.

Against these "pull factors" Congress must push back and eliminate the administration's enticements that foster illegal immigration. But given the spinelessness we're seeing from both sides of the political aisle, I don't see that happening anytime soon. 

Do Americans really think this issue is going to go away on its own - and do they really believe it won't impact the quality of life for all of us? Compassion is one thing, but not at the expense of law, safety and common sense.

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

                                           

Do the successful deserve Social Security?

"Republican" presidential hopeful Chris Christie proposed pushing back the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare for future retirees today as part of a plan to cut deficits by $1 trillion over a decade, an approach he said would confront the nation's "biggest challenges in an honest way."

But in a move that is so leftist that even Hillary Clinton would be finished if she had floated it herself, the New Jersey governor also proposed cutting off Social Security benefits in the future for retirees with annual incomes of $200,000 or more. 

He went on to ask, "Do we really believe that the wealthiest Americans need to take from younger, hard-working Americans to receive what, for most of them, is a modest monthly Social Security check?"

No, Christie, I believe that the money I put in against my will should be returned to me when I retire, no matter what my income. And I believe politicians should stop raiding Social Security funds for their own pet projects. The only way I would change my mind and agree with Christie is if he were to propose that anyone over a certain income is exempt from contributing to Social Security in the first place. I am not holding my breath.

Christie's communist idea is one more reason why to never willingly allow your money to flow to Washington (e.g. by voting for politicians who will raise taxes, etc.). The crooks in Washington will steal our money with a promise of a return only to call us greedy for attempting to hold them accountable to their promise. Christie's idea is totally wrong and completely disheartening considering he is supposedly a Republican.

White cop kills black man: Is it automatically racism?

A white North Charleston police officer was arrested on a murder charge after a video surfaced Tuesday of the lawman shooting eight times at a 50-year-old black man as the man ran away.

Walter Scott, a father of four, died Saturday after Officer Michael Slager, 33, shot him in the back.

It is a tragic death, and Officer Slager has been rightly charged with murder. Even a homeowner protecting himself from an intruder would likely be charged with murder if he shot the intruder in the back.

What is particularly sad is that this terrible incident in North Charleston will likely be used to fan the flames of racism in America. Following the incidents in Ferguson and NYC in which black men were killed by white cops, Americans are ripe with tensions, especially when false narratives - such as the phantom "Hands up, don't shoot" scenario - are set forth as the truth. It was determined that Michael Brown, the black man shot in Ferguson, never said those words or took such a self-defensive posture, but it made for good emotion-baiting across America.

Now with the latest incident involving Scott and Slager, you can be sure the outcry over white cops killing black men will intensify. I share the moral outrage and sadness over Scott's murder. But it is important we don't let emotions guide our reason. It is a question that won't likely be asked by too many, but just because the officer in this case is white and the victim black, does that suffice as automatic proof that racism was the motive? Could Officer Slager simply have had other issues - like anger or impulse control issues for instance - that may have lead to this tragic turn of events?

Unfortunately, I believe such questions won't be considered very broadly, if at all, and instead this event will be used as "proof" that Americans - particularly white police officers - are racist, and that such violence only underscores the increasing calls for an unarmed police force (much like the farcical Bobbies in London) or a federal police force - such as they do in France, another group that is unarmed and hence basically useless in protecting the public. 

But overall we're seeing an unfortunate response to this situation as is expected. When we use tragedies as emotional weapons for affirming certain narratives -- e.g. America is deeply racist -- without looking underneath the surface for the real reasons behind actions, we squander the truth. Sensationalist rhetoric becomes the substitute for facts and then bad decisions are made based on unproven things.

But in today's 24/7 information digital age, imagery, such as the terrible video of Officer Slager gunning down a man in retreat, will be all many people need to draw their conclusions. What we're left with is a society increasingly mistrustful of each other and brimming with anger, without knowing the real source. That simply cannot be good for any of us.

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

Will left condemn Christian massacre in Kenya? Not holding my breath.

Al-Shabab gunmen stormed a university in northeastern Kenya at dawn today, killing at least 147 people according to most recent reports, which makes it the group's bloodiest attack in the East African country, officials said. Four of the gunmen were killed by security forces.

In the attack, which turned into a hostage siege that continued into the evening at Garissa University College, masked militants separated Christian students from Muslims, and then gunned down the Christians without mercy, survivors said. Others ran for their lives with bullets whistling through the air, and hundreds of students remain unaccounted for more.

Ali Mohamud Rage, a spokesman for al-Shabab, said fighters from the Somalia-based extremist group were responsible. The al-Qaida-linked group has been blamed for a series of attacks, including the siege at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in 2013 that killed 67 people, as well as other violence in northern Kenya.

I wonder how long it will take the Whitehouse and others on the left to spin this to make it look like those mean, bigoted, hate filled, homophobic Christian students provoked the peaceful Muslims to do this - that is, if the left even comments on this at all (other than to compare it with the Crusades). God help us. 

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

Religious freedom bills are about rights, not discrimination

Last week Indiana became the 20th state to pass a religious freedom law (which is just the state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993) and has faced angry protests and threats of boycotts as a result. But as Indiana Governor Mike Pence says, it "is not about discrimination [but] empowering people to confront government overreach."

Meanwhile, on a 24-7 vote, the Arkansas Senate has passed and sent to the House a bill to protect the religious freedom of everyone in the state from government intrusion on citizens' religious rights. Basically put, the measure prevents state and local government from taking any action that substantially burdens someone's religious beliefs unless government can prove a "compelling" reason for undermining religious freedoms. Governor Asa Hutchinson has stated he will sign the legislation should it reach his desk and you can be sure he will face similar backlash by angry activists - namely those who believe religious freedom laws undermine homosexual rights.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel opposes Indiana's adoption of its religious freedom law and thinks the upcoming NCAA games in Indianapolis should be moved to a more "gay-friendly" state like Illinois as a result. But apparently the mayor is unaware that Illinois is one of the 20 states that has such a law on the books - thanks to former-Senator Barack Obama who personally sponsored the bill that protects business owners' religious freedoms.

And while Apple CEO Tim Cook self-righteously boasts that he will pull all Apple business out of the state of Indiana, I have yet to hear him say he'll pull his business out of the Middle Eastern countries countries that kill people solely for being homsexual. What a hypocrite. Then again it's a lot easier to bully meek Christians who have been taught to turn the other cheek than it is to go up against groups that will actually murder someone for being homosexual.

By the way, these religious freedom laws do no more than protect the rights of conscience, so why all the fuss? Our Founding Fathers embraced such rights, and it was the idea that America was founded upon - the idea that individuals have inalienable rights, including and perhaps especially the rights of conscience, that put America on the path to her inimitable success.

Opponents of such freedoms are going ballistic but they simply don't understand what the upholding of our First Amendment rights is all about (which is all these laws actually do). Alarmists claim that these freedom laws allow a business owner to refuse to serve homosexuals, blacks, or any other person they choose to refuse service to for any reason. But it's simply not true. RFA's protect a private business owner from being forced by government to partake in an act that goes against deeply held Biblically based beliefs. While there is no Scriptural basis for refusing service to someone because of the color of their skin or whatnot, the Bible does warn against partaking in activities that go against God's Word - such as homosexual unions - and that is the argument at hand.

Based on their own reasoning though, I wonder if extreme activists would support a Jewish T-Shirt maker being forced to make shirts for a pro-Nazi Skinhead rally. Or would they support a black photographer being forced to record a Ku Klux Klan rally? Under the activist mentality, we're all fair game. Our individual beliefs are second-class citizens to politically correct superiority.

And while George Washington once stated his "wish and desire" that "the laws may always be extensively accommodated" to "the conscientious scruples of all men," today a well-organized, ridiculously well-funded movement of activists seeks to deceptively undermine even the most mild acknowledgement of those scruples.

In 1932, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini outlined fascism this way: "The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing; outside of it, no human or spiritual values can exist…the Fascist State…interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people."

Like the sound of that? Because that is precisely the road we're currently on.

What should alarm all Americans is not the government's desire to collectively group the individual rights of conscience under state law; rather, what's especially disturbing is the increasingly powerful activist component that, with nearly complete support of the media, seeks to use the power of the state to demand we all think, act and believe like certain groups do. So much for tolerance and diversity.

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

Harry Reid puts country first by retiring. Finally.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who has led his party's troops since 2005, announced today he will not seek re-election to a sixth term.

Reid has been instrumental in encouraging illegal immigration by overhauling existing laws, encouraging amnesty, and promoting US tax dollars to provide housing, healthcare, education and other perks for lawbreakers. He was a champion of Obamacare, which has stripped countless Americans of their preferred health plans and he has been a vocal proponent of abortion, spending increases and tax hikes. Reid also used his tactical prowess to block GOP initiatives from going anywhere during his tenure as Democratic leader - then joined the voices who called the Republicans the "party of no".

What's interesting is Reid's quote in the YouTube video he posted to announce his retirement today: "I have had time to ponder and to think. We've (his wife and Reid) got to be more concerned about the country, the Senate, the state of Nevada than ourselves," he said. "And as a result of that I'm not going to run for re-election."

Excuse me, Mr. Reid, but shouldn't you have been concerned about the citizens during your tenure? It's only by retiring that you finally admit you're putting the country first. Well, it's a day late and a dollar short, but I'll take it. Good riddance.