Why was Obama so soft on sexual predators?

The Daily Caller ran the first part of a new series based upon opposition research by Obama's 2004 opponent for the US senate, Jack Ryan. Ryan had to prematurely drop out of the race due to a scandal in his personal life, but his game plan for criticizing Obama based on his actual record is still with us and folks, There's GOLD in them thar' hills!

You can peruse the article at your leisure in order to examine the voting record of a dedicated, hard-core leftist radical for yourself, but one particular point brought up in Ryan's research stunned even me... "

"In 1999, Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill that would have prohibited convicted sex abusers who had targeted family members or persons younger than 18 from getting out of jail early for “good behavior.” Two years later, he would vote “present” on the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, which was designed to toughen laws on prisoners and criminals.

Obama summarized his feelings on new crime legislation in an interview with the Copley News Service in 1999. “It’s very hard for elected officials to resist a bill that enhances penalties for drug offenses because nobody’s pro-drug,” Obama said at the time. “For the same reason, it’s very hard to vote against a bill that makes life tougher on sex offenders. Nobody likes sex offenders.”

So it's plain to see that this ideologically driven president has no problem placing his preferred worldview over the safety of others. Too bad Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to find this out the hard way.

Has Samson account been independently verified apart from the Bible?

From yesterday's Christian Post we read...

"Israeli archaeologists recently discovered a coin, dating from the 11th century before Christ. It depicted "a man with long hair fighting a large animal with a feline tail." Ring any Old Testament bells?

The coin was found near the Sorek River, which was the border between the ancient Israelite and Philistine territories 3,100 years ago. Sound vaguely familiar?

The archaeologists thought so, too. While Shlomo Bunimovitz and Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University don't claim that the figure depicted on the coin is proof that Samson actually existed, they do see the coin as proof that stories about a Samson-like man existed independently of the Bible.

Stated differently, the story of Samson was not the literary invention of a sixth-century B.C. scribe living in Babylon, as has commonly been assumed by mainstream biblical scholarship."

It does seem to support the narrative of the Samson account. I admit that I'm not up on 'mainstream biblical scholarship', but I hope this latest discovery gives critics of the Bible pause to reflect upon what the science of archeology is proving about the reliability of this important, ancient document.

Why is Obama hiding his school records from Columbia?‏

Former libertatrian vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root (above) has written a smashing article detailing the evasion of Obama and his handlers about releasing his college records from when he (allegedly) attended Columbia University. Below are some juicy excerpts to pique your interest...

"If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up...

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?"

Indeed, why not release them? I must admit that when I first heard of recent clamorings from the Obama camp that Romny release more tax records than he already has, it was the biggest display of chutzpah I had ever seem. Obama has an entire laundry list of records he refuses to release. I figured, 'Why not challenge Obama to let independent documents experts examine the original of the obviously fake long form birth certificate he touts as genuine and Romney should offer to release more tax information then and only then'. Wayne Allyn Root might be onto something here people.

Quite possibly the worst atheist argument out there

One of the silliest excuses for an argument raised by historically inept atheists is to question the actual existance of Jesus of Nazereth as an actual, historical figure. I've encountered this complete nonsense line of questioning before and I personally find it to be staggeringly dishonest. If youre going to deny the existance of Jesus Christ, then you might as well through out all of recorded history if that is your standard.

Proving the old adage that even a stuck clock is right twice a day, I actually find myself in complete agreement with a piece that appeared in The Huffington Post yesterday. Craig S. Keener does a masterful job of carving up this canard and I love how he does it...

"Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. What movement would make up a recent leader, executed by a Roman governor for treason, and then declare, "We're his followers"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.

One popular objection is that only Christians wrote anything about Jesus. This objection is neither entirely true nor does it reckon with the nature of ancient sources. It usually comes from people who have not worked much with ancient history. Only a small proportion of information from antiquity survives, yet it is often sufficient...

Josephus, the only extant first-century historian focused on Judea, mentions both Jesus and John the Baptist as major prophetic figures, as well as subsequently noting Jesus' brother, James. Later scribes added to the Jesus passage, but the majority of specialists agree on the basic substance of the original, a substance now confirmed by a manuscript that apparently reflects the pre-tampering reading. Josephus describes Jesus as a sage and worker of wonders, and notes that the Roman governor Pilate had him crucified. On the cause of crucifixion Josephus remains discreet, but mass leaders were often executed for sedition -- especially for being potential kings. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus' followers also insisted, even after his death, that he was a king. Josephus was not a Christian and does not elaborate, but his summary matches other sources.

Writing even earlier than Josephus, Syrian philosopher Mara bar Sarapion claimed that Jesus was a wise Jewish king. Tacitus later reports on events from 31-34 years after Jesus' ministry, associating Roman Christians with him and noting that he was executed under Pontius Pilate. These and other sources provide only snippets, but they address what these sources cared about. By comparison, Tacitus mentions only in passing a Jewish king on whom Josephus focused (Agrippa I); nor was Tacitus interested even in Judea's Roman governors. Tacitus's mention of Pilate in connection with Jesus' crucifixion is Roman literature's only mention of Pilate (though Pilate appears in Josephus and an inscription)."

I believe that when Keener writes (re: Josephus) that "Later scribes added to the Jesus passage", he is referring to Josephus definatively mentioning Jesus as 'the Christ' in his writings.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Josephus, Antiqities, 18.3.3

If I'm not mistaken, there are absolutely no copies of Antiquities that that do not contain this specific reference to Jesus as the Christ. None at all going back to the very earliest manuscript copies that we have and thus there are no contradictory writings that exist concerning this passage, it is merely theorized that the relevant passage up above was interpolated later. (Although I think it's a reasonable theory).

Check out Keener's entire article if you get the chance, it's quite good if you have an interest in this sort of thing. Also, if anyone would like to discuss these particular writings of Josephus, I think this entry by Tektonics would be a good place to start.

Miracle in the Muslim world continues

CBN is reporting on a topic I have raised here before, that of the phenomenon of large numbers of Muslims in the Muslim world who are converting to Christianty through a dream oo vision that they experience...

"Several years ago, Ali took the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca known as Hajj.

"Of course when I went to Mecca I was going there in order to pay hommage to the Kabba and to fulfill the requirements in Islam," he recalled.

But the trip became more of a spiritual journey than he could ever imagine.

"That night I saw Jesus in a dream. First, Jesus touched my forehead with his finger. And after touching me, He said, 'You belong to me,'" Ali recalled.

"And then He touched me above my heart," he continued. "'You have been saved, follow me. You belong to me,' he said."

Ali's story in Mecca was told and dramatized in a DVD called "More Than Dreams." (above image)

"I decided I'm not going to finish the Hajj, the pilgrimage. Whatever it takes, I'm going to follow that voice," he explained.

The film documents and dramatizes Ali's story and several other Muslims who came to faith in Jesus through a dream or vision."

I recall years ago reading an account in one of Lee Strobel's books (I forget which) regarding a certain Muslim, professional woman in the banking industry, living in a predominately Muslim country. She was not finding fulfillment and answers through the teachings of Islam and her heart yearned for something else. Then one day when leaving work, she suddenly asked, seemingly out of nowhere, 'Is it you I need Jesus?'. She hadn't been raised in a culture that takes Christianity seriously and she couldn't explain how such a thought suddenly came upon her and she eventually became a Christian.

Strobel's book went on to hypothesize that perhaps God has the ability to break through cultural barriers and meet people where they are, regardless of environment and upbringing. The underlying impression here would seem to be that those who truly seek Him will find Him. He will find a way and come to you, if that's what is necessary, in order to take you home to Him.

What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Changing societal views on rape

Awhile back I did a series of entries based upon the fantastic book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe which examines how Christ has affected culture in so many different ways. We often take for granted the changes that came about in western civilization since the founding of the early church and today's article that appears in Real Clear Science highlights how Chrisianity affected the prevailing mindset of the world before Christ in regard to forcible rape.

"Helle Møller Sigh, a researcher at the Department of Culture and Society at Aarhus University, has studied the Danish versions of the Norse Laws, which were written down between the 1170s and the 1240s.

“We’re seeing a change in the legislation, in which rape goes from being a violation against the household – the woman’s husband or her father – to being listed as a separate crime which violates the woman,” she says.

“This is in no small way due to the influence of the Catholic Church, which wanted to create a peaceful and civilised society and help the weak, including women.”...

The reason the church was interested in changing the perception of rape was that this enabled it to point out that the crime was a violation against the woman. In this way the church could ensure that the rapist was convicted of the violation, something which made society more civilised.

The church had a ‘peace ideology’. This meant, for instance, that there was a wish to replace the right to take the law into your own hands with a fine system, and that the weak people in society should be helped.

“And of all people, it’s fair to say that women back then were among ‘the weak’,” says Sigh."

How far we have fallen as a society when we take the institution that is historically responsible for elevating the status of women to a level much higher than we typically see in the non-Christian world and accuse it of waging a 'War on Women'© simply for wishing to protect the unborn. Kennedy and Newcombe's book is filled with many other examples of these types of changes that Christianity brought to the world and is a great read if this subject matter interests you.

McCracken: Gays won't save the UMC

Kudos to Sky McCracken over at The United Methodist Reporter for bringing some clarity to the issue of Christians considering the compromise of God's word in the name of feel-goody emotionalism. You can check out the entire article at your leisure, I'll just highlight the first point he wished to make for our purposes here...

"1. Changing the stance on homosexuality in the United Methodist Church will not stop the loss of membership in the denomination.

It’s at best a red herring and at worst a lie to espouse otherwise. The Southern Baptist Church continues to lose membership; they are in their fifth year of decline, and they have a very decisive, very clear statement on their opposition to homosexuality.

On the other side of the issue, the Episcopal Church also has a very decisive and clear statement on homosexuality, where they bless and celebrate same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages, even though doing so separated them from the Anglican Communion. Did it help them gain members? Their membership is now lower than it was in 1939.

The loss of membership in both denominations, as well as in the UMC, can reasonably point to one reason: failure to make disciples. We can blame society, we can blame the president and Congress, we can even blame MTV. But we can’t blame our stances on homosexuality.

The fact that I hold an orthodox view on this issue and agree with my denomination’s stance doesn’t let me off the hook for anything – that has nothing to do with a failure to make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. As Dallas Willard reminds us, we are more often guilty of the Great Omission: once we baptize folks, and/or they have been converted to follow Christ, we seem to forget the rest: “teaching them to do everything that [Jesus] commanded you.” That’s discipleship. We have failed at discipleship, and have for several generations."

Perhaps McCracken is right and the chickens are indeed coming home to roost concerning this particular matter via failure of imparting discipleship. Already, several prominent ministers in Minnesota are letting it be known that they will not be helping out in the campaign against legalizing homogamy in that state. Perhaps the Church is undergoing a down-sizing at this moment in which there will hopefully be a meaner, leaner version of adherents in the years to come.

Sowell on Obama: Textbook Fascist

Columnist Thomas Sowell delivers yet another succinct analogy in his latest article in which he delves into the finer points as to whether President Obama, utilizing standard definitions, quilifies as a socialist or a fascist. His answer may suprise you.

"It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time...

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."

I recall Goldberg mentioning that the great author George Orwell once remarked that the meaning of the term fascism had been so hijacked by others and over used and inaccurately applied that "'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable" But if one accepts the definition of fascism in it's historical context as a political system, them Obama certainly fits the bill.

Josh Weed is coming out, and his wife is just fine with it

Therapist Josh Weed (above, left) is having a coming out party and the Mrs is just fine with it. In fact, she offers her thoughts on the matter part way down the blog post and she's apparently known for years, before they were married in fact, that her hubby is gay. I found the following exchange between Weed and a psychologist to be particularly interesting...

"About two years ago, I saw a psychologist to get medication for my ADHD-I. She was a lesbian, and when I told her that I was a gay man in a heterosexual marriage, she spent an entire session hammering me with questions about my situation in a genuine effort to make sure I was happy. I didn’t love that she did this, but as a clinician myself, I understood where she was coming from.



During our conversation, she told me about her life with her partner. She spoke of a girl, whom she considered her daughter, who is the biological child of her ex-lover, with whom she lived for only three years. She told me of how much she loved her daughter, but how infrequently she got to see her. And eventually, when talking about my sex life, she said “well, that’s good you enjoy sex with your wife, but I think it’s sad that you have to settle for something that is counterfeit.”


I was a little taken aback by this idea—I don’t consider my sex-life to be counterfeit. In response, I jokingly said “and I’m sorry that you have to settle for a counterfeit family.” She immediately saw my point and apologized for that comment. Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal. I made that joke to illustrate a point. If you are gay, you will have to choose to fill in the gaps somewhere. She chose to have a family in a way that is different than the ideal. I choose to enjoy sex in a way that is different than the ideal for a gay man. It all comes down to what you choose and why, and knowing what you want for yourself and why you want it. That’s basically what life is all about."

Weed's story is an interesting one and the entire blog post is well worth the time. What Weed is doing here is basically telling the world that although he has certain attractions and impulses, he need not necessarily act upon them. I think we can all agree that there are sexual impulses in which it is much better if they are not acted upon. I happen to be heterosexual, and yet I couldn't possibly imagine how explaining that my mental hardwiring is so would prevent my wife from becoming jealous if I started flirting with another woman. It would only make make our relationship worse.

I can appreciate that perhaps Weed has a bit of an advantage over others who are same-sex attraced in that he was well grounded from a young age as to what God's plan for optimal family conditions is and he decided to follow that blueprint. I hope Mr Weed's testimony can serve as an inspiration to others who find themselves struggling with such desires and can offer them an alternative concerning their potential family life over what is commonly just accepted and considered immutable and inevitable and they can more greatly enjoy God's plan for their life.

Is Bill Clinton Thowing Obama Under The Bus?

Is it at all possible for the president who largely got where he is by expediently throwing people 'under the bus' who become a liability for him or are no longer useful, himself feeling what it's like to be so thoroughly discarded and betrayed? (Make no mistake, that list of who has gotten thrown under the bus by Obama esta largisimo.) Link

I first started considering the possibility that Obama was being thrown under the bus by Clinton a couple of days ago when Bubba said the following in an interview on CNN when asked abou republican candidate Mitt Romney...

"I think he (Romney) had a good business career. If you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them. Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. When you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed. I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work. There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

I was a bit amazed by this coming from Clinton, but then I heard former Clinton advisor Dick Morris state the following last night...

"...I’ve spoken to several good friends who are staunch conservatives who have had exchanges with Bill Clinton in private,’ Morris told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, ‘and at one point one of them quotes him as saying, “You have six months to save the country”…"

I really don't think Morris is lying here. What would he have to gain (personally) by doing so? Perhaps Clinton is actually seeing Obama for the complete disaster he is for religious freedom, free speech, representative democracy, race relations, the economy and the treatment of women that he actually is.

The Obama Administration's Neverending War on Women‏

The Obama administration's glaringly obvious disdain for women was again highlighted last week as Obama refused to support sex-selective abortions that are disproportionately killing girls...

"Why would Obama oppose legislation that doesn't ban abortion, but bans sex selective abortion? Two reasons. 1) He actually supports the idea of aborting a child based on gender preference, after all, who would want to be "punished with a baby" (insert boy or girl here). Not to mention, President Obama is a supporter of leaving babies who survive abortions to die. 2) He's pandering to his Planned Parenthood base. Both are disgusting and the fact that he is willing to stand against a bill that would help to protect both girls and boys from discrimination in the womb shows once again Obama isn't really that "likeable" or overall "good guy." As usual, the White House communications team has made sure it looks as though Obama doesn't stand for sex discrimination, but Obama's actions speak louder than words. Notice how the White House doesn't make any effort to hit back against gendercide, rather, President Obama opposes a bill that would help end it. Where is the White House solution to ending gendercide?"

It appears that Obama is merely attempting to be consistent in his worldview given that he has never voted to support life at any point, whether from conception, birth, even all the way to natural end.

If one desires even more evidence of Obama's disdain for women, simply check out this article from Time magazine detailing the 'boy's club' mentality inside the White House...

"Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard. At a 2010 symposium on women in finance, Christina Romer, then the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, talked about the difficulty she had getting the floor in policy discussions. Suskind relates the story of how Obama reacted angrily to one suggestion by Romer, and yet calmly heard out the same point from Larry Summers a few days later. Other senior women have complained that their arguments seemed to disappear into the ether at meetings, unacknowledged by Obama. Ellen Moran, Obama’s first communications director, was the first member of his team to leave the White House, resigning just 92 days into the term...


Even at the dinner pushed for by top female staffers so they could air their grievances directly with Obama, his reaction–as told by Suskind–amounted to an apologetic shrug. The men who cut their female colleagues out of meetings and decision-making were his friends and closest advisers. He needed them, and didn’t seem inclined to rein them in. The unspoken message: toughen up and deal with it."

When one couples this latest decision not to stick up for females not yet born with the fact that Obama pays women employees about 18% less than male workers, hundreds of thousands of women losing jobs under Obama's watch and his chief campaign strategist defending Bill Maher's characterization of former governor Sarah Palin as a 'c***', (could you imagine the furor if Bush's chief campaign strategist had done so?), it's not very hard at all to apply the tag to Most Misogynistic President Ever to this complete amatuer who is obviously in WAY over his head.

Catholics Prepare for Civil Disobedience

Fresh on the heels of the MSM attempting to downplay and ignore what is quite possibly 'the biggest religious lawsuit in US history', we now learn that the Catholic Church is bracing it's membership for civil disobedience as Chairman Zero attempts to force the church to abandon it's belief's for his own...

"“Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified,” the bishops state in a document developed to be inserted into church bulletins in Catholic parishes around the country in June.

“Every effort must be made to repeal them,” the bishops say in the document, which is already posted on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need to witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.”..

The bishops have noted that June 21, when this fortnight will begin, is the Vigil of the Feast of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More. Fisher was a Roman Catholic cardinal whom the English monarch Henry VIII beheaded in 1535 after he refused to act against his conscience and take an oath asserting that Henry was the supreme authority over the church in England. That same year, Henry VIII also beheaded Thomas More (above), his former chancellor, for the same reason."

This clown is easily the most devisive president over the last century. The only reason this isn't being discussed in such terms is because the media is all too willing to acquiesce to this charlatan, going so far as to creepily airbrush recent news stories concerning his family.

Dexter: How Gay Divorce Cheapens Traditional Marriage

In Penna Dexter's (above, right) latest article, she provides her reasoning as to why the divorce rate among married gays cheapens the institution on traditional marriage as it has been understood for centuries...

"How much divorce is there in the same-sex "marriage" world? It turns out there's a lot.

The United States' history with same-sex "marriage" is short, but Scandinavian countries have been at this much longer. A Stockholm University professor of demography found that in Sweden and Norway male same-sex "marriages" are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.

In Sweden, the divorce rate for female couples is twice that of male couples. And in Norway, lesbian "married" couples are 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

Despite the many efforts to usher in civil unions and same-sex "marriage" in the United States, when laws are changed, the number of couples registering their partnerships is surprisingly low.

Charles Cooke of National Review wrote that since 1997, when Hawaii was the first state to allow registration of same-sex partnerships, only about one in five self-identified same-sex couples have taken advantage of the various ways states register such couples so they can receive benefits. Same-sex "marriage" actually is declining in popularity in the Netherlands."

In the headlong rush to dismantle one of the great pillars upon which Western civilization is built around in the name of such abstract terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion' never once are the predictable societal effects taken into account.

Before any gay apologists start popping off about a 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexual marriages, I would suggest that they actually research the matter first. It turns out that in many surveys, 2nd and 3rd marriages that end with divorce are often lumped in with first marriages and the actual divorce rate of first marriages may be as low as 20 percent.

EDIT: And just how is that technique of 'jamming' working out for the Gay Left? It appears that the logical firstfruits of stigmatizing principled, civil disagreement (or any disgreement for that matter) with the gay agenda as 'bigoted', 'intolerant' or 'homophobic' is now coming to fruition.

A Principled defense of Traditional Marriage; Two Arguments

Kelly O'Connell's recent article raises the above question and provides a number of defenses re: traditional marriage. Being that Western society is becoming increasingly irreligious, I won't even touch upon the religious arguments raised by Ms. O'Connell for the simple fact that in today's world, religious arguments are completely lost upon people who have almost no grounding in Biblical history or study. John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (above) recently presented a balanced, civil and principled argument against gay marriage (without appealing to religion) in which he basically stated redefining marriage to include same-sex couples 'would benefit nobody'...

"I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people, with very little if anything gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long term we would all be losers.

Of course, if someone should ask, "how will my marriage be affected if couples of the same sex can marry?", the answer is: not at all. But let me put the question another way: what sort of a society would we have if we came to see all family relationships primarily in terms of equal rights? The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same...

Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory against same-sex couples. What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into a fancy-free individualism."

And how is Archbishop Sentamu treated for daring to differ with the enlightened idealogues of The New World Order? He's advocating 'bigotry' of course. No dissent, no matter how well laid out and completely absent of ill will is allowed being that the more vocal supporters of gay marriage obviously ascribe to the viewpoint of 'gay marriage uber alles'.

Ms. O'Connell meanwhile, cites some statistics in her defense of traditional marriage such as the following...

• 
  
  63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census)—5 times the average.



• 
  
  90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes—32 times the average.



• 
  
  85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  


• 
  
  80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes—14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)



• 
  
  71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)



• 
  
  70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes—9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  
  


• 
  
  85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
  
  
  "Now, one can assume that a female playing the male role in a lesbian relationship would erase this problem, if such a dynamic exists. But frankly, why would a female attempting to act masculine take the place of a real man? This assumes that the problem with being fatherless is due entirely to there being only half a couple responsible for the children. It also assumes men and women are utterly interchangeable. And yet we know for a fact that men and women, even when undertaking the same tasks, are still radically different (see here).
  
  
  
  It also assumes that male and female homosexual couples model male and female behavior effectively, which is crucial since young children learn much by mimicking. In fact, many experts are concerned that gay parenting will be brought in with anodyne claims of its harmlessness, and only after it becomes an institution, will we be told it is harmful but its too late to call it off. But what could possibly be done after it is legally and culturally established as a norm if it is found deleterious? For instance, in dealing with cases which came before a court, one author wrote:
  
  
  
  "A systematic analysis of appeals court cases or cases cited in those appeals cases regarding custody of children in which a homosexual parent was involved. Here, 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals’ associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant."

When taken as a whole, all of this adds up to criteria in which a reasonable person could say 'Wait a minute, let's put the brakes on this whole 'gay marriage' thing and study the effects of such institutions on a society before rushing forward, pell-mell style, utilizing emotional rather than scientific arguments in this case'. That's if that reasonable person doesn't mind being accussed of hatred for daring lift their head on this subject.

Vindication for so-called 'birthers'

Jack Cashill has an even-handed article that gives his take on the newly uncovered evidence that the Serenghetti Saviour was still described as Kenyan-born as late as 2007.

"Despite the claims made in the 1991 sales brochure produced by literary agent Jane Dystel, I do not believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

But I do believe that Obama said he was. The agency’s alleged fact-checking error is pure bull. I have written eight books myself, and I got to review every piece of promotional literature sent out about me or about my books. All authors get to do this.

The question that must be asked is why would Obama say he was born in Kenya if he was not. Well, from early on no doubt, Barack Obama learned that it paid to be exotic. Foreign birth gave him a romantic allure and also allowed him to distance himself from the bitter clingers of the country he barely deigned to inhabit.

“I chose my friends carefully,” he writes in “Dreams,” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” These were the people with whom he felt comfortable.

Of course, a Kenyan birth would preclude his becoming president, but in 1991, Obama was not thinking that far ahead."

I have said all along that I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that Obama was born in Hawaii. However one cannot say that this has conclusively been shown given that not a single document expert has ever examined O's long-form birth certificate. One would have to blame the Mainstream Media in this case for doing nothing but run intereference for the guy, squashing any examinination of this charlatan's past while covering his butt at every opportunity.

At least the Arizona Secreary of State is showing an ounce of backbone in this matter by asking hawaii officials to verify O's paperwork.

An Open Letter to Rachel Held Evans‏

If anyone wants to see an example of Hand-Wringing Over Homogamy-Christian Style! look no further than this tear-jerker posted by Rachel Held Evans. I doubt I ever could invent a more sloppily put together, parody of an argument based solely on emotionalism if I actually tried. The entire article is so filled with errors that I scarcely know where to begin!

"When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.”

Really? And why do you think that is Ms. Evans? Being that the church has been buffeted by years of trumped up accusations of intolerance and seldom, (if ever) are the churched allowed to respond in a public forum where they are treated with dignity rather than disdain, is it any wonder that people of that age bracket have probably never even heard one of the better Christian apologists in their lives? Could they even name a Christian apologist if you offered them 20 bucks to do so? Could they even accurately define the word 'apologetics' if asked?

When a well known newspaper reporter for the New York Times openly declares that "three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals” then is it really any wonder that the religious aren't getting a fair shake by the MSM?

Next, I'd like to address the following nonsense put forward as serious commentary re: the outcome of North Carolinians thoroughly rejecting pretend, sodomy-based marriage in favor of traditional marriage...

As I watched my Facebook and Twitter feeds last night, the reaction among my friends fell into an imperfect but highly predictable pattern. Christians over 40 were celebrating. Christians under 40 were mourning. Reading through the comments, the same thought kept returning to my mind as occurred to me when I first saw that Billy Graham ad: You’re losing us."

Billy Graham is 'losing you'? I would argue that it is you and your ilk that are losing Billy Graham as various churches are submitting to heresy in the name of feel-goody platitudes rather than actually analyzing scripture in a critical and open-minded manner for it's central message.

When reading your article Ms. Evans, I admit that I am concerned as to how remarkably and dangerously misinformed you truly are. You seem to subscribe to the utterly unfounded notion that "the Church’s response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among..gay and lesbian friends" as expresssed to you by students. However how do you explain that in highly secular European countries where same-sex marriage has been legal for a decade or more, suicide is endemic among homosexuals? This holds true for such countries as the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and especially Norway where about one in four homosexuals under the age of 25 have attempted suicide at least once.


Again, given that these nations are highly secular, it's hard to hang this one on Pat Robertson et al Ms. Evans.

Furthermore, when one compares the statistics of suicide among gays in the US as compared to those countries, we seem to be doing something right when it comes to gay suicide...

"Now let's look at the facts. We will define a tolerant society where homogamy or civil unions are recognized; here are six tolerant societies: Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands. Next we will define moderate religious society, where homosexuality is generally considered to be wrong, but not illegal: Ireland, USA, Italy, Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay...

According to the World Health Organization, the average male suicide rate for tolerant secular societies is 21.6 per 100,000. The average male suicide rate for moderate religious societies is 9.6 per 100,000."

Also, when one looks closer to home here in the US, it appears that highly gay friendly San Francisco has by far the highest suicide rate among young people of any county of California at 9.0 per 100,000 which is more than double that of San Mateo county which stands at 4.1 per 100,000 of the population.

All of these statistics are there for your verification and edification Ms. Evans. I guess the only question I have for you is why do you support putting conditions in place that, statistics show, would lead to higher rates of suicide among homosexuals? From whence this vitriolic hatred of your's Ms Evans?

A day with Dr Peter Hammond

Sunday School was especially fascinating this past weekend as I had the privilege of sitting in on a presentation by Dr Peter Hammond (bio here), one of the leading advocates against radical Jihadism in the world today and who is perfoming missionary work in some of the most dangerous places on the face of the planet. Especially harrowing was Dr Hammonds accounts of ministering to black Christians in the south of Sudan in the area of the Nuba mountains.

Dr Hammond related an instance from when he was preaching in the area of Equatoria in South Sudan that aircraft from the Khartoum government in the north, obstensibly representing the Religion of Peace ®, began bombing the area where their church service was being held. Although eight bombs were dropped in an area not much larger than a football field, no one perished in the incident, however Dr Hammond experienced several cracked ribs having been struck by flying debris from the explosion.

In another incident reported by Dr Hammond, he described being bitten by one of the nastiest species of scopions around while out ministering to the Nabu people and he could actually feel the poison coursing through his body, heading straight for his heart. Hammond added that they were miles from any medical facility and the only thing that he could rely on was the promise given by Jesus in Luke 10:19 and after praying with others, he literally could feel the poison leaving his body.

I have provided a permanent link to Dr Hammond's website reformationSA.org on the right margin in case anyone is interested in finding out more about this wonderful organization.

TRIVIA: Dr Hammond has the distinction of having the first (non-pornografic) book lobbied for to be banned in the new South Africa. Who can name that book?

Forces of Hatred Defeated In North Carolina

 

The forces of bigotry were turned back at the polls yesterday as citizens of North Carolina voted to amend their state constitution  to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The above map indicates the counties that voted for adding the language to the constitution (in green) and against it (in red).  The two western counties in red barely passed with 51% to 49% votes.  It would seem that the strategy of stealing signs from traditional marriage supporters backfired and the citizens then did the right thing by approving this measure. One thing not mentioned by the opponents of trditional marriage was the specific language to be included in the constitutional amendment...

"With the passage of this amendment, a new Section 6 was added to Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution, which reads as follows: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

Of course, to mention that would begin to take the only arguments the Left had going for them (emotion based arguments) off the table and the last thing the Pink Hand desires in these matters is rational discussion on the matter.   



God is not mocked: 2 examples

Sunday School was informative this week and two examples of those who wished to uproot Christianity and their eventual legacies were discussed. The first example cited was that of enlightenmant philosopher Voltaire who famously said ' that within 100 years of his time, Christianity would be swept away from existence and pass into the obscurity of history'. Exactly how did that prediction work out for Voltaire?

"Voltaire, a French infidel, said: “While it took 12 men to write Christianity up, I will show that it takes but one man to write it down!” Taking his pen, he dipped it into the ink of unbelief and wrote against God. But, the very room in which he made that statement was soon used after his death as a Bible storehouse! The printing press which published Voltaire’s works was later used in Geneva to print Bibles! Voltaire’s house was used by the Geneva Bible Society as a distribution center for Bibles. Voltaire stated that 100 years from his death a person would be able to find a copy of the Bible only in museums because the Bible would become a dead book! He died in 1778.

Only 25 years after his death, the British and Foreign Bible Society was organized and the very presses which had been used to print Voltaire’s writings were used to print copies of the Word of God.

Since Voltaire’s death, millions of copies of the Bible have been printed. The demand for Bibles increases." 

So much for that prediction by ole' Voltaire. The second example mentioned yesterday was that of atheist Felix Dzerzhinsky. Once the leader of Chaka, the forerunner of the GPU, his organization murdered many priests and other 'enemies of the state' and the total killed may have been high as half a million souls. After his death in 1926, eventually a large statue was erected in his honor in Moscow and it was called 'Iron Feliz' by the locals. Click here to see the image of what eventually became of his statue.

Above image- Russian Orthodox cross erected on what was once the pedestal supported the statur of 'Iron Felix'.

Obama White House gives shout-out to Nazi sympathizer

Fresh off the recent embarrasment of opting for a slogan utilized by the Hitler Youth, the Obama administration demonstrates it's ineptitude by celebrating a known Nazi sympathizer...

"The presidential proclamation commemorates “the enduring legacy of Jewish Americans,” and links to a website called JewishHeritageMonth.gov. It has since been edited, but the original version of President Obama’s proclamation added, “Their history of unbroken perseverance and their belief in tomorrow’s promise offers a lesson not only to Jewish Americans, but to all Americans. From Aaron Copland to Albert Einstein, Gertrude Stein to Justice Louis Brandeis.”

Gertrude Stein?

..“Stein’s closest friend,” (Alan) Dershowitz continued, “and a man who greatly influenced her turn toward fascism was Bernard Fay, who the Vichy government put in charge of hunting down Masons, Jews and other perceived enemies of the State. Fay was more than a mere collaborator as suggested by the Met exhibit. He was a full blown Nazi operative, responsible for the deaths of many people. After the war, when the horrendous results were known to all, Gertrude wrote in support of Fay when he was placed on trial for his Nazi war crimes.”

Joining Dershowitz in criticism of the Met for whitewashing Stein’s Vichy past from their exhibit, Alexander Narzaryan at the New York Daily News reminds us that Stein nominated Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938. And she wasn’t tepid about it. Stein told the New York Times in 1934, "I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace ... By suppressing Jews ... he was ending struggle in Germany."


I'm sure this was a mere oversight on Obama's part and a mistake by one of his subordinates.  But the pattern emerging here is troubling and causes one to wonder who is pulling the strings behind the curtain in this administration.