The less God, the more troubled times in our country

After singing ”White Christmas” at the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in New York City earlier this month, Darius Rucker was accused of racism. Apparently a black person mentioning anything white showed profound insensitivity to black people following recent grand jury decisions on the police-involved deaths of two black men. It doesn’t matter that the word “white” in the title refers to snow, not skin color. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if instead of looking for evil where it doesn’t exist, we would begin putting more focus on the other word in the song’s title – Christmas, particularly how God showed His great love for us by sending His Son into the world for our salvation? If we did this, maybe we could begin eliminating some problems facing our country, from actual racism to other forms of immorality. As it stands, though, it seems the more we lose sight of the true meaning of Christmas – especially the root of that word, Christ, the worse things get in our country.

For instance, as we all know, in many ways the word “Christmas” has been largely reduced to a tool for generating profits in the marketplace. Of course that’s when it’s even referred to as Christmas, instead of as “holiday” or some other ambiguous term designed to mean nothing and offend no one, except practicing Christians, maybe. Each year stores open earlier and close later – and are even open on days like Thanksgiving now -- so that material-focused consumers can get their shopping done, while stress levels only seem to skyrocket.

And do people even know why they’re putting themselves through all of this? I recently overheard a young mother explaining to her little boy that Christmas means “presents, and hot chocolate, and snowflakes, warm mittens and love.” She got one part right. And while it’s true and good that this time of year brings out the love in many, say through extra donations to charities and families in need, for instance, if we truly knew the “Reason for the Season”, wouldn’t charities be well-funded all year round?

It doesn’t stop there, though. What used to be called “Christmas Vacation” by most public schools is now “Winter Break.” This is an unsurprising outcome of the precedent set when official prayer was stopped in public schools. Prior to 1962, prayer in school was used in school districts all over the US in many varieties. Some teachers used ad hoc prayers; others implemented structured prayers, such as the Lord's Prayer or Psalm 23. And in New York, students prayed each day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers, and our nation.”

It was this simple, loving prayer which came under fire and went to the Supreme Court for the landmark decision to stop school prayer.  Since then there have been increased calls to remove all references to God not only from public schools, but from the public square in general under the deeply misunderstood concept of “separation of Church and State”.  The examples of this misunderstanding get more alarming every day.

For instance, the US Army recently disciplined a Christian military chaplain for making references to the Bible during a suicide prevention seminar Nov. 20. What does it tell us about where our country is heading when a Christian minister gest reprimanded for citing Scripture? And does the removal of God really help our society?

Since removing official school prayer in 1962, criminal arrests, teen suicides, illegal drug activity, child abuse cases, and divorce have all increased exponentially according to statistics from the US Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Commerce, respectively. Is this all just a coincidence?

When God was removed from school, sex education was brought in – with some school districts now targeting children as young as five years old about activities that seem perverse even to adults. Consequently, as the school’s involvement in sex education has increased -- without any firm foundation to discourage sexual experimentation -- promiscuity, premarital sex, and unplanned pregnancies have exploded. In addition, while God has been shunned, moral relativism has been celebrated, and, not surprisingly, when right or wrong becomes relative to the individual, a natural consequence is to self-approve immoral behavior.

Please don't anyone freak out. I'm not calling for mandatory school prayer or a theocracy. But asking if there is a correlation between removing God from schools and the decline in our culture is a valid question that I believe warrants thought.

This country grew to be the greatest country in the world when it operated under Judeo-Christian principles. What’s so beautiful about the Christmas Season is that it reminds us that we are loved by our Creator, and in that love, there is hope – not only the hope of our redemption and salvation, but the hope that we can all come to see each other as members of the same family in God. Maybe for the New Year we can resolve to concentrate on that love of God inherent in Christmas and work toward bringing Him back into our public square, which is sorely in need of His presence. Wishing all of you a Merry Christmas and a happy, peaceful New Year.

Denying link between Islam and terrorism is a foolish mistake

When will our world's leaders unbury their heads and acknowledge the link between terrorism and Islam? No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but pretty much every act of terrorism we've seen in the past couple of decades have been enacted by Muslims in the name of Allah.

But liberals want us to think that Christians are the real threat. They want us to believe that Christians are trying to take away other people’s religious rights, Christians are trying to destroy science education, Christians are radicals and potential home-grown terrorists.

Of course there are some Christians who are sick in the head and do bad things. But they are denounced by practicing Christians, not praised like Muslim terrorists are, as indicated by the dancing in the streets we saw by many Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks. And to the argument that it's only a small percentage of Muslims who are intent on killing those who don't praise Allah, keep in mind there are about a billion Muslims. Even a small percentage of that means millions of radical, deadly Muslims scouring the earth for their latest targets to kidnap, rape and behead.

Meanwhile Christians in America are getting in trouble for praying in public, for putting a crucifix on their desk or even, as in the case of one fire station, putting up a “Happy Birthday, Jesus” sign during the Christmas season. Even a Christian military chaplain was recently punished for citing Scripture during a suicide prevention seminar he was leading. 

But murdering Christians because they don't embrace Islam? Beheading a woman in Oklahoma because she refused to convert? Holding Sydney-based cafe patrons hostage for hours and killing some of them because they're not Muslim? Slaughtering hundreds of Pakistani children at school in the name of Allah? These are just isolated incidents carried out by misguided criminals, according to world leaders and many in the media. 

What is particularly disturbing, is that in the wake of the Sydney hostage crisis, almost immediately afterward, the hashtag #illridewithyou popped up in Twitter in support of Muslims. Why was there no #illprayforyou hashtag in support of the hostages and the victims who were killed?

In fact, the day after the hostage showdown in Sydney, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott proclaimed that ISIS - the group responsible for the hostage situation at the cafe - has nothing to do with any religion. I guess he doesn't know that the first "I" in ISIS stands for Islamic.

In a press-conference response to the beheading of an American journalist by ISIS members, our own denier-in-chief Barack Obama said earlier this year that ISIS is neither Islamic nor a State. I guess he doesn't know that the first "S" in ISIS stands for State. Then again, he had to get back to the golf course immediately after that conference so probably didn't have time to do his fact checking.

If these radical Islamists wanted to keep their fanatic beliefs to themselves, that would be one thing. But they don't. They have announced repeatedly their intentions to take over the world and kill anyone who doesn't adopt their beliefs. From what we're seeing, they're living up to their promise, and anyone denying the threat they represent is a fool.

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

Making girls out of little boys*

Young men are being totally raked over the coals in this culture by the high powered engines of radical feminism. The feminist extremists, which includes some men, and their “men-are-despicable” philosophy occupy the high ground in every institution – largely because they have played the victim card to perfection.

They control the education establishment, the media, the entertainment world, the courts and even the various religious bodies – and they have done this by taking aim squarely at
authentic masculinity.

So today, older boys and younger men dance to the music of feminist rage – not to mention quite a few older males as well, who still knew better back in the bra-burning days of the 1960s.

The masculine has become so belittled and denigrated that boys do the easiest, laziest, most gratifying thing available and simply retreat into video games and pornography, and are  drugged up by the feminzai-controlled education system which diagnoses 1 in 7 American boys as having ADHD -- and then writes a prescription for them for Ritalin – a powerful mood stabilizer – merely for being boys.

The scourge of society in the past 50 years has been the lack of the authentic masculine, because an effective authentic masculinity would have never allowed this highly charged destructive radical feminism to emerge and kill the men. 

Last week at Georgetown Hilary Clinton gave a speech. She strode up to the podium in her pantsuit and strongly suggested that women are better at foreign policy and governing than men are. They are better at building coalitions and reaching consensus than men, she said – apparently, she’s never heard of Queen Elizabeth I or Moa Tse Tung’s wife.

During the University of Virginia frat rape story – which has turned out to be much more fantasy than reality – the feministas were tripping all over themselves on various TV outlets breathlessly denouncing men in high drama – again pushing the victim angle saying women were objects of hate.

So, where are all the men? We see idiot men in TV commercials and sitcoms. We see serial killer men in movies. We see sex-crazed men in music videos and we see effeminate men in religious realms.

But where are the real men? There are still many who exist - I personally know many - but by and large, they’ve been sidelined because strong authentic men are an obstacle to the weak, effeminate, emotion saturated high dungeon of radical feminism.

And it is precisely this that must be fought against – shrill radical feminism must be confronted by confident authentic masculinity.* 

Now the question is, how do we bring back the real men from the shadows into the light?

*From Michael Vorhis/ChurchMilitantTV.com

Assisted suicide: Relief at the expense of life itself

Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, invited public debate on assisted suicide when she announced through the Compassion and Choices organization her decision to move to Oregon to take advantage of its “right to die” law, where she died by lethal prescription on Nov. 1. It is a tragic case. But was Brittany’s decision courageous and a victory for freedom, as advocates of assisted-suicide claim, or does it undermine the sanctity of life?

Brittany chose death, she said, to spare her loved ones from seeing her suffer and because she also, very understandably, feared the physical suffering her doctors promised she would endure. I don’t know what Brittany’s thoughts on God were, but the issue evokes the often asked question, “If God is all powerful and good, then why does He allow bad things to happen to people?”

The question is rooted in atheism, which directs us to observe the evil around us as proof that there is no God. But although suffering does exist, God does not will that we suffer, just as He did not will that Adam and Eve sin. And while nobody, save masochists, wants to suffer, some believe it can actually be redemptive.

Catholicism, for instance, teaches that suffering, when accepted and offered up in union with the Passion of Jesus, can aid in the physical or spiritual needs of oneself or another. And when Christ tells us to "take up your cross and follow me” (Mt.16:24), we are invited to that union with Him in our own suffering.

Of course not everyone holds this biblical view and I don’t assume to know what Brittany believed or experienced. I only know my personal experience in watching my own mother’s battle with terminal brain cancer and how her lifelong witness of faith, especially during that difficult time, brought me to a more full understanding that her suffering was not from God, but the grace to endure it was.

This is what saddens me about Brittany’s suicide and all those who do the same. Do they seek to escape their suffering because of a lonely fear not rooted in unity with God? I don’t claim to know their reasons, but when we do remove God from life’s challenges, we’re left only with our human fears and the decisions we make based on those fears. And where will such decisions ultimately take us as a society?

In a world that prizes free choice above all else, Brittany’s highly publicized “death by choice” is applauded by some as a victory for freedom, which plays right into the culture of death that has taken such ghoulish hold of our world. Just as abortion is packaged as “liberating” to women, we are now seeing the disturbingly misguided concept that all choice is good choice – “as long as it’s my choice” – being applied toward achieving our own deaths. How terribly sad.

But if we use freedom as the basis for ending life, then at what point can we put a limit on that freedom? The simple answer is, we can’t. If it is seen as cruel to suggest someone should endure suffering, then why shouldn’t society advocate lethal prescriptions for everyone the instant a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer is made?

And why stop there? Under the premise of freedom, we shouldn’t expect a diabetic to endure the challenges that come with that condition. Nor should we expect someone heartbroken by unrequited love to withstand that sort of suffering. In fact, why not advocate death for anyone whose quality of life is not what they expect? A visit to any pro assisted-suicide chat room will show you this is precisely what is being encouraged now.

Maybe this explains why so many young people today choose suicide when bullied. They’ve grown up witnessing that personal comfort is valued over human life itself. What lessons are youngsters being taught that suffering is a part of life and that their own lives are sacred, even if not perfect?  

Interestingly though, when we hear of someone’s suicide, such as recently with Robin Williams, there is an outcry over the tragedy of it because by nature we see suicide as a heartbreaking choice. How, then, is it any less tragic just because someone publicly plans her suicide with a physician’s assistance? 

In a way, it’s even worse, because by normalizing death as a solution to life’s problems, more people will opt for it, and eventually it may no longer be the suffering individual’s despair – but our own despair over someone else’s suffering -- that becomes justification to end a life.

Case in point, there are end-of-life counseling directives in Obamacare, and the first expense slashed under the health law was billions of dollars to treat the elderly. How many “suffering” people are encouraged to die to save money altogether or because a “compassionate” society desensitized to death – but not to suffering -- decides on someone’s behalf that suffering should be rejected? And just who decides how much suffering is too much?

This is what happens, though, when we blur the boundaries of life’s value: We subject ourselves to others’ notions of what life should be, while providing protective cover to those who would seek to have us die.

I pray for Brittany’s soul and for her grieving loved ones. I also pray that life, not death, is what our culture exalts, despite the challenges that life brings. And while we should always seek new and better ways to reduce suffering, assisted suicide offers relief only at the expense of human life itself; human life that has God-given dignity and unseen purpose, from conception to natural death. 

13 facts media won't tell you about Ferguson case

According to protesters who erupted in violence after a grand jury declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., this was the case of a white policeman shooting an unarmed black teenager with his hands in the air in a community plagued by racial tension.

That's the  account promoted by many in the mainstream media and race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as well. But here are several facts about the case that are harder to find:

1. Surveillance video showed that shortly before the confrontation, 18-year-old Brown stole cigarillos from a convenience store and shoved a clerk who tried to stop him.

2. The autopsy report showed that Brown had marijuana in his system when he died.

3. Officer Wilson, driving to the call of a medical emergency, first encountered Brown walking in the middle of a street and told Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk. Brown responded with an expletive.

4. Wilson chose to confront Brown only after he saw the cigarillos in his hand and recalled the radio report of a robbery at the convenience store.

5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.

6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a p****y to shoot me."

7. An African-American witness confirmed that Brown and Wilson appeared to be "arm-wrestling" by the car.

8. Another witness saw Brown leaning through the car's window and said "some sort of confrontation was taking place."

9. After Wilson fired a shot that struck Brown's hand, Brown fled and Wilson gave chase. Brown suddenly stopped. An unidentified witness told the grand jury that 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson with his head down. Wilson said Brown put his hand under the waistband of his pants as he continued toward Wilson. That's when Wilson fired.

10. A witness testified that Brown never raised his hands.

11. Gunpowder found on the wound on Brown's hand indicated his hand was close to the gun when it fired. According to a report, the hand wound showed foreign matter "consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm."

12. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, said the gunpowder "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has particulate matter in the wound."

13. Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy." He said that during the confrontation, he was thinking: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive?" Legal experts say police officers typically have wide latitude to use deadly force when they feel their safety is threatened.*
*13 facts courtesy of Newsmax

Why can't people understand that law enforcement officers are allowed to defend themselves? If an officer feels like his life is in danger he can shoot. They shoot white people charging at them, armed or unarmed, too. The media and professional race hustlers jumped all over this issue, ignoring facts in favor of fanning racial flames and now look at the mess it has caused. 

In his response to the Grand Jury's decision not to indict Officer Willis, President Barack Obama said he understood how difficult this decision is for the black community to take. He called for peace, and said we are a nation of law, but he never mentioned the need to obey the law. He never told the thugs burning down Ferguson that they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Then again, when he flew to Ferguson the day after the elections, Obama told key "anti-Wilson" stakeholders there to "stay the course".  Stay what course? To burn their town to the ground if the decision didn't go their way, despite the evidence revealed in testimony that points to Wilson's lack of intentional guilt?

Now the "victims of racism" in Ferguson are robbing, looting, burning, pillaging, all in the name of justice. Justice for whom? Since when does criminal action render justice to anyone? 

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

Obama cites Bible when it suits his liberal agenda, ignores it for the rest of us

In his address to the nation earlier this week, President Barack Obama cited Scripture to defend his illegal executive action on immigration without congressional approval. Essentially granting amnesty to at least 5 million illegal aliens by some estimates, Obama included a brief citation from Exodus by saying, "Scripture tells us we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.”

First, the president's deference to biblical scripture is suspicious. If Obama felt such a strong biblical need to shred our Constitution, why did he wait until after the elections to do this? After all, if it is the right thing to do, Obama wouldn't have had to worry about hurting Democrats' election campaigns by doing this before Nov. 4. 

And as as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “If he feels so strongly … and Scripture dictates this ought to be done, why did he do nothing about this in 2009 and 2010 when he had control of the Congress … when he could have done this constitutionally?”

Second, it is not a form of oppression to ask somebody to obey the law. If someone breaks the law and experiences legal consequences, that's not oppression. That's justice. Compassion, in fact, is helping someone to obey the law, not break it.

Third, the command to be kind toward immigrants is directed to us as individuals, not to government. The government's job is justice; kindness and generosity is our job.

Obama's reliance on Scripture also reeks of hypocrisy. Notice how he will use the Bible when it suits his extremely liberal agenda on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex "marriage." But when it comes to those who are living their lives based on biblical principles - such as those who cite Scripture on the sin of homosexuality or murder - Obama thumbs his nose at them. He conveniently ignores the Bible's teachings to justify his forcing religious people to pay for abortifacients or to participate in same-sex events, despite their deeply held biblical beliefs that say such things are a sin.

Obama sycophants will try to tell us that Reagan and Bush also used executive orders on immigration. Yes, to clarify existing laws - not to disregard laws and make new ones on a whim. And no matter what Reagan and Bush did, their actions were nowhere near the magnificent scope of what Obama has done.

With all the legal Americans searching in vain for work under our Obama nation, what do you think 5 million new unskilled workers will do to Americans' job search efforts? Now that they don't have to remain hidden, do you really think they will continue to settle for jobs in the fields? No, they will go after the same jobs Americans are currently struggling to find. The only difference is that the illegals will be granted all sorts of tax-funded assistance in the form of education, healthcare and food stamps, while Americans are on their own.

There is no more basic duty of a government than that of protecting its borders. And the promised Executive Order, universally assumed to entail amnesty and residency status for millions of people who entered our country illegally, intentionally undermines this most basic duty. It also sets up the president as a grand legislator, able to make law for the nation in defiance of the national legislature.

When the effects of Obama's incessant attacks on America are felt by the average American, maybe everyone's eyes will be open to what this man is doing to our country and our rule of law. At that point, about the closest thing to a scriptural-sounding passage we could assign to this president would be, "And Obama loved the poor so much that he created millions more."

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

Pro-life Women Will Make History in 114th Congress*

The pro-life movement can be comforted to know that come this January there will be a record number of women representing them in Congress.

An historic 21 women who define themselves as pro-life will be serving in the 114th Congress, beating the previous high of 18. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said that in 1992, when she started the SBA List, there were only two pro-life women in Congress. What a difference a few elections make.

The four new pro-life women joining the House of Representatives include Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Mia Love (R-UT), Barbara Comstock (R-VA) and Mimi Walters (R-CA). As for the Senate, it will gain pro-life fighter Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

This new pro-life representation bodes well for legislation like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill which would ban abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to introduce it for a vote once he becomes majority leader.

The influx of pro-lifers in Congress parallels the country’s shift on abortion. In May 2012, a record low of Americans (47 percent) defined themselves as “pro-choice” and millennials have been referred to as the pro-life generation, especially considering their passion at this year's March for Life in Washington, DC. One reason for this may be advances in technology, such as ultrasound machines, which allows us to peek into the womb and witness an unborn baby’s growth.

Watch Dannenfelser explain how voters rejected the idea that abortion is the "great liberator of women."

It’s that simple: The more pro-life leaders we elect, the more babies we save. And hopefully this will end the 'war on women' line of bull from the Democrats forever. I'm sick and tired of hearing it.

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

*Courtesy of Cortney O'Brien

Liberals claim Tuesday's election results a sign of racism

Despite Tuesday’s election results -- a clear rejection of the socialist direction our country has been taking -- liberals are still claiming their way is the best way, and, oddly, in what can only be seen as desperate, some are claiming the results were because of conservative racism. I guess they don't realize that conservatives elected the first black Republican woman to the US House of Representatives, Mia Love of Utah, and the first black Senator from the South elected since reconstruction, Tim Scott of South Carolina.

It’s not a huge number, but it’s a big message that I hope black Americans currently under the thumb of race-baiting tactics will eventually embrace – that there is an alternative to the Democrat-controlled method of staying in power by convincing black people that Democrats are their only hope.

As far as racism in America, there are two camps that black people are currently viewed by: those with "victim" mentality, championed by the likes of uber racists like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who have made their fame and fortune by hustling “the racist white man” for millions of dollars, and by fomenting strife between the races, such as they’re currently doing in Ferguson, MO.

The other camp consists of men like Allan West and Dr. Ben Carson, men at the top of the field, truly 'self made men' starting in the depths of urban poverty and ending at the pinnacle of personal and professional success.

But Al, Jessie and their minions deride men like Ben and Alan as 'sellouts' and 'puppets' of the conservatives. They’re simply “Uncle Toms” because they don't need Al and Jessie, don't make excuses for their lives and, worst of all, keep themselves far away from the Democrat plantation.

As we all know, if anyone criticizes President Obama, it’s not because they don’t like his policies, it’s because they don’t like the color of his skin. But as Congresswoman-elect Mia Love said of her victory, “This has nothing to do with race. I wasn’t elected because of the color of my skin…I was elected because of the solutions I put on the table.”

How nice it would be if the mainstream media broadcast Ms. Love’s message as widely as it fans the flames of supposed racism, such as it’s doing in Ferguson, MO. 

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

Should bad laws be questioned? This group says no....

A pair of Christian ministers in Idaho may face up to $1,000 in fines and six months in prison for refusing to perform same-sex weddings at their for-profit wedding chapel.

The owners, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, say  for the past several months, the city in which they reside has privately and publicly threatened to apply its nondiscrimination ordinance to them if same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho and the Knapps declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony at The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.

"Each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000."

"Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted," the Knapps' attorney Jeremy Tedesco, told reporters, adding, "The threat of enforcement is more than just credible. The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected, just as the First Amendment intended."

Like this scenario shows, increasingly often, Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of about 98 percent of Americans.

This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions -- where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs, and where government officials are making it clear they will use their power to punish those who try to stand up for their convictions.

Activists will say that because a business operates publicly, the owners must obey all laws, specifically broadly written anti-discrimination laws. That is just plain dangerous. Under this premise, we are all at risk because now any government body can pass any law it chooses, and according to this premise, we are not to question it because it is the law. With this thinking, slavery should have remained legal. After all, even the Supreme Court said it was constitutional and, according to LGBT activists, we should not question such things, right?

The bottom line is, if a law strips an individual of his or her right to live their faith publicly, then it is a bad law, pure and simple, and must be changed. This is not about hatred of homosexuals. If the LGBT activists would think honestly about it, they would see that a person's love for God and the desire to adhere to His word trumps anything else, and they should try to genuinely understand the position this puts the believer in. 

In trying to exercise such understanding, LGBT activists would likely also come to know that out of love for God, Christians have love for our fellow human beings - period. Though I may not agree with someone, or even know them, I know that I feel actual love for my fellow human beings and I would do anything in my power to help someone in need of something. But I draw the line at violating God's Law to do so, and if I am forced to violate God's Law to "help" someone, then it is not genuine help in the first place. 

But regarding God's Law, LGBT activists are trying to convince us that the Bible is either false or that it does not state that homosexuality is a sin in the first place, which in fact it does in several passages, including Genesis 19, Roman 1:27, 1 Corinthian 6:9, and a couple in Leviathan that describe homosexuality as an abomination. And for the record, there is no sin in same-sex attraction, only in acting upon that temptation. 

Now stating this does not mean that I am personally judging those who engage in homosexual acts – it is not my place to do so, and I simply don’t. Again, this is the Bible’s teaching, it is not my personal judgment of anyone. I am more concerned with how God judges me for my own sins, though I am concerned for the eternal well-being of other sinners as well. That is out of love, not hatred. 

On the other hand, in Ezekiel 33:7-9, the Bible warns that we are complicit in one’s sin if we do not try to dissuade someone from it, and in several passages, including in 1 Corinthian, we are warned about being complicit in one’s sin by certain acts of association with those committing the sin. But nowhere does the Bible tell us to hate sinners, or we would all have to loathe ourselves. What the Bible asks us to do is hate the sin because of the damage it does to our soul. Anyone who has love for a fellow human being ought not only try to avoid committing his own sins, but help those struggling with sin to turn away from it.

This leads to another part of the issue. If a homosexual person honestly does not believe his sexual actions are sinful, then he might not be held accountable to God for them - and I pray that is the case because I don't want anything bad to befall any human being. But a believer who knows something is a sin, yet takes part in actions that go against God's teachings, either by committing the sin or being complicit in another's sin, is held accountable. 

And this is the position LGBT people are putting Christians in. We are taught about sin, and therefore we are accountable for actions that go against God's teachings. But just because an LGBT person may reject the Bible, is it not right that he or she demand that a believer reject it as well.

Moreover, LGBT activists are telling us that certain things aren't sinful, and therefore say we have no right to avoid what we know to be sinful. In other words, they are asking us to choose their word over God's Word, even though they don't seem to understand or accept that we believe doing so will put our souls in jeopardy. And thanks to bad laws that activists say should not be questioned, there is an attempt to force us to go against what we believe to be true based on literally thousands of years of Biblical teaching. Saying one is tolerant of religion but then denying people's right to live their actual religious beliefs is not supportive of religion at all - nor is it loving.

There are better ways to find common ground. Respecting people's individuality, showing understanding, and being tolerant of their beliefs - not forcing them to violate them - is a good place to start. 

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

Anti-discrimination policies about control, not equality

There are claims that religion is being used to discriminate against women and LGBT people, but isn’t it the other way around? It seems our increasingly socialist-leaning government is the one using women and LGBT people to discriminate against religious people – namely Christians – to paint them as evil and strip them of their fundamental freedoms.

Wrong and hateful discrimination obviously exists, such as abusing someone for his sexual preference or religious views. But there is also the type we all practice daily in making the discriminating decisions on how to live our lives in ways best suited to our Constitutional right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It is here that an over-reaching government, in the name of fairness, is putting our liberties at risk.

Cited examples of religious-based discrimination include business owners refusing to provide forced insurance coverage of contraception/abortifacients; pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions; and bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls declining service to same-sex couples planning weddings.

But what some call religious-based discrimination is really just free commerce. Nobody has the right to demand a service be rendered, and under our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, citizens are free to not only worship as they choose, but to publicly live their religious beliefs, including in how they choose to earn a legal living.

As long as citizens are allowed these fundamental freedoms, they are empowered, and in that, government is kept in check. Of course this is despised by a big, godless government with big socialist dreams. Rather than strip citizens of individual liberty in one fell swoop, though, it’s being done incrementally and by dividing people.

First, freedom-loving citizens who don’t wish to be controlled must be vilified. A Christian morally opposed to paying for abortifacients is now simply a hater of women. If your religious beliefs tell you that photographing a same-sex wedding is the same as endorsing a sexual practice you believe is a sin, you are automatically a hater of homosexuals. And it is not enough to be maligned for not wanting to partake in certain commerce; now you will be punitively fined and even forced to do so, essentially making you a slave.

Complicit in this are certain activist women and LGBT people who demand their wants be met specifically by the very people who do not wish to meet those demands. To these activist “victims” it doesn’t matter that contraception is easily accessible overall, or that plenty of entrepreneurs would gladly provide services for same-sex events. These “victims” disregard available options and choose to impose their personal beliefs on religious people –the so-called “haters” – who ironically are the ones accused of imposing their beliefs on the “victims”.

Seeing the opportunity for control, government is increasingly backing the “victims” through anti-discrimination policies – most recently through LGBT policies that  address discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression – and which are being systematically implemented all over the country, including dozens of cities across Michigan (with plans for statewide implementation in the works).

On the surface, protecting against actual wrongful discrimination based on one’s sexual identity sounds fine. But when such policies can be used to undermine one group’s freedoms, while granting special powers to another group, it is no longer about equality, but control. In the attempt to defend certain aspects of human dignity, such policies end up pitting people against each other and create a protected class in which “victims” don’t need to prove their victimhood, but innocent people must prove they are not malicious discriminators. This sets the stage for a whole lot of trouble.

For instance, under these policies, not only are business owners being forced to provide services against their will, but an employer who hires a homosexual and then fires him because the employee stole from the register can be sued for anti-homosexual discrimination. The burden would be on the employer to prove his innocence.

Or, under the “public accommodations” clauses of some ordinances, a typical girl-crazy teenaged boy could say he “identifies as a girl” and enter the girls’ locker room to watch them shower. As many of these ordinances dictate, if a girl complains, she is the one punished for discrimination against a “gender-confused” boy. 

What’s most concerning is that activists oppose any and all religious exemptions currently built-in to some anti-discrimination policies. Imagine how far things would go should such so-called safeguards be removed. It would create a society where religion is forced underground completely and private entrepreneurs, clergy and every day citizens become unwilling servants of government without freedom of speech -- while the “victim” class is held up as justification for this control. Sadly, if those who value liberty don’t push back on these efforts, things will get rapidly worse.

What LGBT activists refuse to accept is that religious beliefs surrounding homosexuality go back thousands of years. LGBT activism is a few decades old. Read "After the Ball", the 1990 book written by homosexual activists that outlines a clear strategy that's been put in place for normalizing homosexuality, while painting Christians as bigots and homophobes. If LGBT's truly want acceptance, forcing people to forfeit their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of punishment is not the way to do it.

Socialism is all about dividing and controlling people, and government on every level is doing a spectacular job of this, as are the activists. Unfortunately, it is under the cloak of equality that serious progress is being made by those who want to replace the principles of individualism, Christianity, and the Constitution, with tyranny, slavery and life without God. 

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

President Obama thinks Ebola czar more effective than travel ban

President Barack Obama said yesterday that he's considering appointing an Ebola “czar” to coordinate the fight against the virus in the United States but remains opposed to a ban on travel from West Africa. Meanwhile, he authorized calling up military reservists to send them to West Africa to help fight Ebola.

Just what can the military do that doctors and nurses cannot? But more important, how can allowing people to continue flying into America on flights that originated from the disease-stricken areas be in anyone's best interest? Is the president not aware of what Liberian Thomas Eric Duncan's travel to America has set in motion? Now Obama is open to anyone else who may be carrying the deadly disease to enter as well?

Obama's reasoning for not imposing a travel ban, by the way, is because he thinks it will devastate economic conditions in places like Liberia. What about the economic calamity an Ebola epidemic in America will have on our country? The disease continues to spread in West Africa where outbreak began in March and is now in the last district in Sierra Leone that had been unaffected by Ebola. Think that can't happen here?

Obama also said a travel ban will only make the disease harder to track. What? How can putting a lasso around the problem make it harder to manage? Why have so many other countries, such as Britain, Israel and even Haiti, imposed travel bans from West Africa but we haven't?

Here's why. Obama doesn't want to ban travel because he doesn't want Americans to make the connection between banning travel and keeping the disease out of our country. He doesn't want people to figure out that if a travel ban worked to stop the dissemination of ebola, then maybe we should slam the border with Mexico shut to make sure it and other diseases don't come in that way (such as the enterovirus problem fatally attacking children across America, and tuberculosis which is now spreading in Massachusetts where Obama dumped illegal immigrant children recently).

But Obama, as usual, refuses to close the borders through which Ebola and other diseased people could enter our country completely untracked. Remember, closing the borders would put Obama's precious amnesty dreams in peril and perhaps stem the flow of future Democrat voters.

As travel remains unimpeded and borders remain open, what exactly does our president see an Ebola czar accomplishing? By the way, the czar chosen, government insider , Ron Klain, doesn't even have a medical background. What we need is common sense. What we're getting from Obama is more bureaucrats who he must appoint because he is incapable of leadership himself on anything.

It's disgraceful that our government will demand things like sodas and trans fats be banned in the name of our "safety", but a tricky, contagious, fatal disease does not warrant the same control. It's bad enough that Obama and his fellow liberal America-haters have been putting politics above American freedoms for years, but now they are putting politics above human lives. That is beyond shameful and unacceptable, and even the staunchest Obama supporter should start thinking of their own loved ones at this point and the risk this unstable man in the White House poses to them. Enough is enough.

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

Chimpanzees to get legal personhood? Court to decide soon.

ABC News reports that “[a] state appeals court will decide in coming weeks whether chimpanzees are entitled to ‘legal personhood’ in a case that could lead to expanded rights for animals such as gorillas, elephants and dolphins, according to the lawyer advocating for a 26-year-old chimp named Tommy.”

Unborn babies don’t have any rights. They can be killed for any reason. After all, they're not even considered humans. Although in this day and age it's safer to be a turtle or a bird. Liberals will lay down their own lives to protect one of these species.

Business owners don’t have any rights. They must sell to people even if they disagree with their immoral lifestyles or radicalized ideologies. If they don't, they'll be punitively fined and/or punished.

But chimpanzees . . . well, that’s a different story.

If given legal personhood, will chimps be able to get food stamps, collect unemployment, and free healthcare? Will gorillas, elephants and dolphins be able to vote? After all, liberals are opposed to voter ID laws, so why couldn't an animal's human caretaker fill out a ballot on the chimp's behalf? By the way, have you noticed that pet supply and other animal-related advertisements now refer to humans as "pet caretakers" or "guardians" rather than owners?

If given personhood rights, it won’t be too long before pets are designated “legal persons.” Then they can get married and receive tax breaks.

Think it's a stretch?

Well it wasn't too long ago that the idea of letting illegal immigrants vote and allowing two men to marry seemed like a stretch too. Now both are on the table. Why not chimpanzees as well?

God help us all. The world has gone insane. But this is what happens when the world turns its back on God - we get godless things.

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

Pro-life messages countered by swastikas on Michigan college campus*

*From LifeSiteNews:
Pro-life messages at Eastern Michigan University were marred by swastikas and water this week. In a press release accompanied by several photos, Students for Life of America says that students at the university promoted life on Sunday night using chalked messages like "Life is precious, let's protect it" and "Women regret abortion." However, pro-abortion students threw water on at least one of the messages, and drew swastikas next to others.

A spokesperson for SFLA told LifeSiteNews that the pro-abortion students who confronted the pro-lifers also posted a photo of Savita Halappanavar, claiming that Halappanavar's 2012 death was due to the lack of a "life-saving abortion" in Ireland.

However, as LifeSiteNews reported last year, it was a lack of basic care that was responsible for Halappanavar's death, including the lack of a proper antibiotic regimen when she became ill. Halappanavar's death and the subsequent misunderstanding of the cause of death became a flashpoint for supporters of abortion, and was a key component of the ultimately successful effort to loosen Ireland's abortion laws.

“Eastern Michigan Students for Life, through our dedicated leadership team and members, want to change hearts and minds through loving means," said Rueben Ainley, the club’s vice president. [End LSN report.]

I find it interesting that women who support abortion call it "woman's healthcare" but they ignore the harmful risks and consequences. In fact, when Texas tried to require that doctors performing abortions have hospital admitting privileges in case of emergency abortion consequences, pro-abortion women decried this as harming women. What exactly do these women want? Do they even understand the issue at hand?

Jihad in America? Oklahoma woman beheaded by recent Muslim convert

30-year-old Alton Nolen had just been fired when he entered the front-office of a food distribution center in Moore, Oklahoma, where he proceeded to attack 54-year-old Colleen Hufford with a knife, severing her head.

Nolen then proceeded to attack 43-year-old Traci Johnson with the same knife when Mark Vaughn, an Oklahoma County reserve deputy and a former CEO of the business, shot Nolan - who is now hospitalized but expected to live.

The FBI is now looking into Nolen’s background after his former co-workers said he tried to convert them to Islam after recently converting himself. 

This comes just three months after the June 25 fatal shooting of a New Jersey teen by 29 year-old Ali Muhammad Brown who confessed to killing the teen as an act of "jihad" because the victim, Brendan Tevlin, "was Christian."

Whether these brutal attacks are really acts of jihad, or if they are merely the acts of lost men just looking for an identity, either way, we obviously have a problem on our hands. Are these young men being actively recruited by Radical Islam, as we've all heard is happening in America? Or are these acts the product of a bored, godless culture where thrill kills are becoming more common? And to what extent do we need to fear copy-cats of such brutality who do so for nothing more than the sick need for attention?

Radical Islam terrorist groups - from ISIS to Hamas - have promised a global caliphate that calls for the death of all infadels - aka, non-Muslims. ISIS, in fact, recently promised to carry out its deadly jihad in America and raise its flag over the White House.

Is this the beginning of that promise coming to fruition? Or should we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is nothing to worry about?

Either way, for now, I am grateful for Mark Vaughn's presence - and the weapon he had on hand to stop a second murder from happening today. Like the old saying goes, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a weapon, is a good guy with a weapon. Maybe anti-gun activists should take a second look at our right to bear arms from the perspective that this right actually does save lives. 

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

Illegal immigrants to get ID cards, discounts & free perks

Making good on his campaign promise, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced several months ago in his State of the City Address that New York will issue identity cards to illegal immigrants, a move that is, to say the least, controversial. 

But it gets worse: yesterday, di Blasio added that the cards will also grant illegal immigrants free memberships to top cultural institutions, from Carnegie Hall to the Bronx Zoo. And officials hinted the cards eventually will provide illegal immigrants discounts at movie theaters and other commercial entertainment venues, as if being here illegally is honorable and deserving of reward. Maybe if I were to leave America, renounce my citizenship, and then re-enter America illegally, I could receive the free healthcare, education, and now entertainment, that I and all legal working citizens currently have to pay for ourselves, but that illegal immigrants receive for free.

de Blasio and his pro-illegal immigration supporters argue that ID cards improve the relationship between the immigrant community and the local police. They add that IDs recognize immigrants’ humanity and dignity even though those immigrants broke federal immigration laws to enter the U.S. 

Moreover, a New York Times investigative report revealed that 6 million aliens pay payroll taxes, which means that illegal aliens must have fraudulently obtained Social Security cards, falsified I-9 forms under penalty of perjury, or committed identity theft, all of which are felonies (in addition to the crime of entering the country illegally).

di Blasio says the ID cards - and the perks that come with them - are a way to acknowledge humanity. But they also endorse illegal immigration, make it easier for deportable aliens to remain, and represent a security threat. 

With these cards, however, de Blasio would also be committing a felony. According to Sec. 274 of the federal immigration code, any action that: “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law” is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment.

Like his predecessor Michael Bloomberg, de Blasio is an immigration reform advocate. Even so, the ID cards put innocent New Yorkers unnecessarily at risk. Once the essentially worthless cards become available, they could lure ill-intentioned people to New York. Then, without having to verify beyond a reasonable doubt who they are, they could assume multiple identities and, like the 911 terrorists, hide in plain sight. 

So why would a progressive like diBlasio encourage such a risky thing? Simple. Doing so encourages these illegals to vote for Democrats. But they don't have the right to vote, you say? Sure they do. It's called voter fraud. It's rampant, and the left's hysterical opposition to voter ID laws makes it easy for illegals to vote.

I guess New York's mayor and his cronies have forgotten what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and that they're oblivious to the radical Islam threat currently being made by ISIS to raise its flag over the White House and bring its deadly jihad to America (in fact, one man who brutally shot and killed a New Jersey teen back in June confessed it was an act of jihad). But so what as long as the Democrats can stay in power with whatever means it takes, right?

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

CFL vs incandescent bulbs: The government's version of making things better

It's Friday, so I felt like keeping things a little light today - well, if you can consider the complete lack of common sense by our government officials remotely light! So with that said, speaking of light, I was just thinking about some of the key differences between the expensive, government-pushed Compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulb and the ingenious, inexpensive innovation known as the incandescent light bulb. For starters, CFL bulbs are made of glass tubes filled with gas and mercury, whereas incandescent bulbs consist of a filament made of a long, thin piece of tungsten metal. Meanwhile, CFL bulbs are being pushed on consumers, while incandescent bulbs are now banned, thanks to an unfortunate “energy” bill signed in 2007 by President George W. Bush, effectively reducing consumer choice.

But instead of going into the pros and cons of each, I think the main difference between the two bulbs can best be captured in the methods required to clean up a bulb should it ever break. If it ever happens to you, here are clear instructions for cleaning up each type of bulb.

1) How to clean up a broken CFL bulb (this is from the U.S. EPA website):

Before Cleanup…

• Have people and pets leave the room.
• Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. 
• Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
• Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:

          -- stiff paper or cardboard;

          -- sticky tape;

          -- damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and

          -- a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During Cleanup…

• DO NOT VACUUM.  Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.  Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.
• Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.  Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard.  Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.  See the detailed cleanup instructions for more information, and for differences in cleaning up hard surfaces versus carpeting or rugs.
• Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After Cleanup

• Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of.  Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors. 
• Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.
• If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
• If you have further questions, please call your local poison control center at 1-800-222-1222.

2) How to clean up a broken incandescent bulb:

• Get out the broom.
• Sweep it up.
• Throw it away.

And people trust the government to make our healthcare system more simple? Hmm....

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