New law bans right to choose wanted therapy

New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie just took away a teenager's freedom by signing his name to a new law that bans all licensed counselors in New Jersey from helping minor teens dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.

Sure, Christie - who wants to be your president in 2016 - scored major points with the gay rights movement by doing this, but if your young loved one were struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction - an attraction that contradicted your child's desire to live life according to deeply held Biblical values - shouldn't he or she have the right to seek a counselor's help? And shouldn't a parent have the right to seek that help on their child's behalf?

Well, too bad, says Christie. Professional counseling for Christian teens is now banned in New Jersey. Christie has tried to claim he's just doing what the science says to protect children from licensed Christian counseling. But isn't denying a person from receiving help if they do not want the same-sex attraction nothing short of indoctrination to the homosexual lifestyle? At the very least, it's a violation of patient rights. 

Even the American Psychological Association (APA) -- which opposes counseling based on the idea that homosexuality is a disorder -- admits that "patients have a right to self-determination, and that sexual orientation change efforts sometimes help people."

Consider people like Jeff Bennion, a man who struggled with same-sex attraction for many years, but who's now happily married with a wife and child. In a New York Post Op-Ed, Bennion wrote, “The client’s right to determine the course of his own therapy is a touchstone of modern psychotherapy. So the effort to deny people access to this therapy not only infringes on my right to self-determination, it violates the ethical standards of every major mental-health association.”

Prof. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, also chimed in on the topic when he wrote an article for USA Today defending the right of those individuals with same-sex attractions who desire therapy to pursue it.

In his op-ed, he wrote, “Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment.”

Those with a tendency toward knee-jerk reactions will probably just see this push-back to the law as homophobia, or an attack on gay rights. But those people need to start thinking about things a little more deeply and truthfully in order to see the big picture. Bottom line is, a government figure is taking away an individual's rights to get help that he or she wants. Think about that, please. 

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

What's really behind ObamaCare delays?

Democrats are planning on using the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to help them win the 2014 mid-term elections, as if it's something to be proud of. But if it's so great, then why does the Obama administration feel it's necessary to delay so many key parts of its implementation until after the elections? Simple. Because it knows if this disastrous monstrosity is in full effect before the elections, Democrats have much less chance of victory at the polls.

While some parts of ObamaCare are already in effect (e.g. higher taxes on medical devices, the costs of which are passed down to consumers), the vast majority of it was scheduled to go into full effect in January 2014. But with the November elections in mind, the first key provision of ObamaCare - drastic cuts to Medicare - is being delayed until after the elections.

This way, unsuspecting senior citizens at the voting polls in November 2014 will still have no idea how their access to healthcare is about to be severely blocked. To Democrats, what's a few million senior citizens without lifesaving medical treatment? It's not their lives that are priceless. It's their votes.

The next provision delayed until after the elections is the employer mandate that requires job creators with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance to all workers. It's a magnificent expense that many small business simply cannot afford. To get around this, many small businesses say they will have to let workers go or simply stop hiring.

This hurts both job seekers and the employers who would probably rather invest in and expand their business -- and jobs -- but cannot afford to do so under the strangling costs of ObamaCare. But delaying this requirement until after November 2014 buys Democrats more time to hide the disastrous impact that ObamaCare will have. Fewer disgruntled people means more votes for Democrats, and they know it.

Next came the announcement that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. This way anyone can just say they cannot afford insurance on their own and be eligible for help from the government without having to prove they're in need of help. How great is that? Who wouldn't vote for such a government come November 2014?

Finally, now we have just been told that another highly expensive provision of ObamaCare will be delayed until after the elections: its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles.

Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.

Sure that sounds great, right? But how do you think the insurance companies will pay for these limitless benefits? Through massive increases in our premiums, of course.

Denial of these facts does not make them any less true. Whether we get hit with ObamaCare's ugly truths before or after the November elections, it is still something the vast majority of us will be affected by. And even if you support ObamaCare for now, ask yourself honestly - if there's nothing to hide, why is the left doing everything it can to delay ObamaCare until after the elections?

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

President's dismissal of "phony scandals" reveals his blatant arrogance toward Americans

Since taking office, President Obama’s arrogance, bypassing of Congress, and blatant disregard for both the Constitution and our God-given rights as citizens makes him anything but the kind of leader America deserves. Add to this the intensifying scandals surrounding his presidency and one can’t help but question if he is even fit to hold office.

This was underscored the other day when, rather than acknowledge these scandals in any meaningful way, he downplayed them and even used them against his opponents, accusing Republicans of focusing on "an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals."

Does he really think the scandals are phony? For instance, instead of responsibly addressing the disgusting cover-up surrounding the Benghazi terror attacks which resulted in the murder of four Americans, Obama wants to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Instead of clearly denouncing the IRS scandal, in which the IRS itself admitted to targeting conservative groups and denying their applications to form non-profit groups, Obama downplays and even minimizes the efforts of those trying to bring this abuse of power to light.

Instead of showing an ounce of interest in getting to the bottom of the Fast and Furious issue, in which our own government gave guns to illegal drug cartels in Mexico, which were then used to murder Americans, Obama scoffs at it as though “those silly Republicans are just at it again” trying to cause trouble for the President.

Instead of remotely respecting our religious freedoms of conscience, Obama is backing the HHS mandate which literally forces citizens to choose between violating their faith or violating the law – a clearly unconstitutional choice

And too often it seems that whenever Obama addresses these issues, it is never with an iota of humility, warmth or genuine concern, but rather with blatant, mocking derision that he speaks to us about these things.

This is not leadership. This is a dereliction of duty underscored by the kind of arrogance one only sees in dictators. Yet so many in this country who don’t take the time to keep themselves informed continue to give Obama a pass because he “seems like a nice guy.” Really? In what world is this kind of behavior nice?

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

President's comments about Catholic schools border on threatening

President Barack Obama said during his visit to Northern Ireland this week that Catholic schools are a form of division.

To a Belfast audience Obama  said, "If towns remain divided, if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation."

Obama clearly denies - or is probably just unaware of -- the very significant role that religious education — especially Catholic education — has played in ending the strife in Northern Ireland, in particular the role of Catholic educators in helping to raise new generations in Ireland who recognize the importance of cooperation and peace. That's something that should be praised, not denounced.

But the threatening gauntlet has been laid. It just remains to be seen how long it will be before Obama starts spewing his rhetoric here that American Catholic schools are divisivse, a.k.a. intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted...and ultimately outlawed.  And I wonder how many of Obama's blind followers will buy into his rhetoric and start believing and repeating the nonsense that Catholic schools are somehow a bad thing and should be shut down. Inflammatory rhetoric is a powerful tool, and if Obama starts spreading his views in America, Catholic schools here could be in trouble.

We can still hope the president will keep his own intolerance - and destructive agenda - to himself and let the rest of us live our God-given, consitutional rights. We can also hope he'll stop making such foolish comments when representing our country overseas.

The writing, however, is on the wall of what this man is all about. He is not an organizer. He is not one who unites people. In fact, he is more divisive than any president we've ever had and he is certainly more divisive than a Catholic school (which permits people of all faith - or even no faith - by the way). Obama is nothing more than a flame-thrower, and a destroyer of rights, traditions and individualism. But he certainly is effectively doing what he set out to do: transform America from the leader of the world to something less and less recognizable every day.

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

Senate votes to move forward on disastrous immigration bill

From the Heritage Foundation...

[The Senate voted yesterday to move forward on the Gang of Eight’s immigration plan—which would grant amnesty  to 11 million illegal immigrants, and cost us trillions of dollars to boot.

Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result. As Heritage’s David Inserra points out, “Instead of new ideas, the current bill is essentially just recycling the flawed and failed ideas of the past.”

Once amnesty is granted it can never be taken away. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) took to the Senate floor yesterday to outline several reasons why we may be asking for trouble on this amnesty proposal.

"With this bill, the American people are being sold a product. They’re being asked to accept legalization. And in exchange, they’d be assured through this legislation that the laws are going to be enforced."

But this “product” contains all sorts of hidden agendas and faulty promises, with no guarantees that the promises will come true once the amnesty is in place.

“The Obama Administration has pushed the envelope by waiving welfare laws,” Grassley reminded the Senate, so why should we assume the Administration wouldn’t do it again? “The reality check for the American people is that there are loopholes and the potential for public benefits to go to those who are legalized under the bill.”

The danger of putting too many things in one bill is that you end up having to pass it to see what's in it. But we know one thing: Amnesty for illegal immigrants is the first order of business.

We've tried it before and it didn’t work. This is the wrong way to address a serious issue with trillions in taxpayer dollars at stake. ]

Please help spread the word about what the Senate is doing. This is not a "solution" our country can afford. Perhaps if the government would enforce the laws already on the books that they refuse to enforce, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

Media more concerned with baby seals than baby humans

After frantic calls last Saturday about a distressed harbor seal pup that was struggling against the surf with its umbilical cord still attached, the three-day-old pup was rescued off Long Island in NY and taken to a marine mammal hospital where it has been cared for and even given a name.

The story is getting a lot of attention because of the emotions evoked by this poor, struggling, abandoned baby seal. Major news outlets have covered the story, including ABC, NBC and the like. After all, it's a huge story: a baby seal was struggling for life.

It's a shame news outlets don't see fit to give the same attention to the human babies struggling for life at the hands of abortionists across America, like Kermit Gosnell, who witnesses testified left a baby "flailing about in a toilet trying to get out" after surviving the abortion attempt Gosnell made on his life.

But then again, in our current culture, human babies aren't on the same level as baby harbor seals. Unlike humans who survive the womb in an abortion attempt and are subject to whatever the nearest adult deems fit, harbor seals are protected under federal law, and it is unlawful to approach, feed or handle them in any way that may harm them. Similar federal protections are extended to things like turtle eggs.

Human lives, however, apparently aren't so worthy. Those helpless, defenseless human babies in the womb are on their own. And you can be certain the media won't cover the story of any child who loses his life during abortion or at the hands of a doctor after surviving the attempted abortion. I guess you'd have to be a seal to warrant that kind of media concern and attention.

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

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.