Tag Archives: homosexuality

Putin Preaches Godliness to America

PutinOriginally posted at American Thinker

The moral disintegration must be pretty bad if a former KGB officer and current leader of what once was a communist regime feels moved to reprimand Euro-Atlantic nations established primarily upon Judeo-Christian values by calling them “godless.”

Since the fall of communism, religion now plays an important part in Russian life.  Rest assured: communists who’ve lived through state-established atheism surely recognize the obliteration of religious expression when they see it.

That’s why it’s pretty chilling to hear Vladimir Putin hurling accusations at the West and pointing out that what’s going on is identical to what went on when communism was established and religion was completely expunged from the Soviet Union.  Between 1917 and 1937, almost a quarter of a million Christians were executed, and churches that survived destruction were converted into things like museums of atheism.

Russian President Putin, who hasn’t been shy about expressing his disapproval of homosexuality and has banned what he defined as “homosexual propaganda,” had this to say:

Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.

Speaking to his people in the state of the nation address delivered at the end of last year, the Russian president defended traditional values, pointed out the moral bankruptcy of the West, and maintained that conservatism, both religious and societal, is what prevents what he defined as worldwide “chaotic darkness.”

Quite the opposite of what goes on in America, where these days the only form of permissible discrimination involves the denigration of conservatives and people of faith, in Russia, it’s now a criminal offense to “insult” the religious sensibilities of believers.

So it’s come to this.  In lieu of a president who respects Judeo-Christian values, an ex-KGB officer from a formerly atheist country is actually warning the West about how godlessness results in the kind of “chaotic darkness,” “belief in Satan,” and “path to degradation” that America is currently on.

Granted, criminalizing homosexuality and making “insulting religious sensibilities” illegal aren’t policies America should ever emulate.  Moreover, lest we forget, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin preaching Christ does not diminish the Russian president’s dark political and personal past.

But what’s ironic is that in this case, a leader who should be viewed with extreme caution is actually speaking truth to nations hell-bent on repeating Soviet Russia’s mistakes.

Barack Obama Peddles Adam and Steve in Senegal

DownloadedFileOriginally posted at American Thinker

The $100-million Obama Traveling Show touched down in Senegal.  All heady from news of the activist side of the Supreme Court further weakening the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama could not contain his exuberance over Adam and Steve getting closer to being able to book their wedding reception immediately following the more traditional nuptials of Adam and Eve.

Not happy with “fundamentally transforming” the once-great nation called the United States of America, in Senegal, where homosexuality is outlawed, Barack Obama felt compelled to talk down the established laws and leadership of the African nations hosting him.  He called for homosexuals to have equal rights in countries where gays are usually imprisoned or, worse yet, decapitated.

The stunning thing about Barack Obama’s gall is that his tolerance for anyone disagreeing with him is less than zero.  Yet he’s arrogant enough to disrespect Senegalese President Macky Sall and challenge Senegal’s stand on social issues.

What if Vladimir Putin swam over from Russia to the U.S. to appeal to evangelicals by insisting that Christians should not be forced to finance insurance policies that cover birth control and abortion?  Obama would blow a gasket.  But when it comes to his right to infringe on the leadership of others, Barack Obama has no respect for diplomatic boundaries.

President Macky Sall quickly rejected Obama’s inappropriate call for Africans to give gays equal rights under the law.  Why Sall would even host Barack Obama is curious indeed.  After all, Sall overthrew an incumbent who tried to change Senegal’s constitution and establish a familial dynasty of succession.

Sall responded to the U.S. president’s effrontery on the homosexual issue by politely saying, “We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality. This does not mean we are homophobic.”  Even if Senegal is homophobic, quite frankly, it’s none of Barack Obama’s business.

Senegalese law says that “an improper or unnatural act with a person of the same sex” can be punished by up to five years in prison, which is sort of the direction America is moving — but with Tea Party types being portrayed as more unnatural than gays.  Nonetheless, Sall reassured Obama that in Senegal, gays, unlike Christians and conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives in the U.S., are not mistreated.

After a meeting in the presidential palace, Obama brushed aside Sall’s comments and reiterated that his goal is to send a message to Africans that his opinion should hold more weight than African law and leadership decrees.

Then, although many had already surmised it, the world officially found out that Barack Obama is planning on transforming the universe.  Circumventing Sall’s correction, Obama stressed: “People should be treated equally, and that’s a principle that I think applies universally.” And if Macky Sall doesn’t want Chicago to visit Senegal, he’d best submit.

As for the African people, just like in America, what they want, think, or believe doesn’t matter much to Obama.  Amnesty International released a report that said that 38 African countries consider homosexuality wrong, and according to Pew, nine out of 10 respondents — 90 percent — of Senegalese, Kenyans, Ghanaians, Ugandans, and Nigerians reject homosexuality.

That means that if Barack Obama were in charge, Christians and Muslims in these African nations would be forced to submit and accept what they consider reprehensible.

Which raises the question: how can a president who claims to support Islam also support homosexuality, premarital sex, and abortion?  Is the plan, when Obama ups the ante and goes universal, to inflict his social views on Muslims, too?

Nonetheless, after calling 83-year-old lesbian Edie Windsor from Air Force One on his way to Africa to congratulate her on the SCOTUS voting down DOMA 5-4, the president said his administration would begin to closely examine every federal statute to quickly level the playing field between Billy and Lily and Billy and Willy.

That plan raises yet another question: the Obama administration has the resources to comb through every federal statute to pick out every benefit for which married same-sex couples will be eligible, but didn’t have the manpower all these years to canvas American cities and locate renegade illegal aliens?

Either way, while in Africa, Barack Obama reiterated his personal conviction that gay rights are at the “root of who we are as … American[s].”  Because after all, Obama, who now speaks for the people who disagree with him, says, “We believe in basic fairness.”  The problem is that in Obama’s world, the type of fairness he’s referring to is social and economic equity, which is unattainable without inflicting the sort of totalitarian groundwork he’s presently laying.

Segueing from promoting homosexuality in a Muslim nation to designer religiosity, Obama then prayed for ailing former South African President Nelson Mandela, whose impending funeral might take the attention off the extended Obama family’s $100-million African getaway.

When he finished pushing homosexuality to Macky Sall, Obama toured Goree Island, the place where (although he won’t admit it) signares — wealthy women of color — sold their own people into slavery through the “Door of No Return” (which is a lot like what liberals do to black people in America).

As for the African people, someone should inform them that Barack Obama is a son of Hawaii — I repeat: H-A-W-A-I-I — not Africa, because for some reason the signs outside his hotel, possibly borrowed from Ireland, read, “Welcome home, President Obama.”

Along with those signs, gay (but not in a gay way) village people greeted him with music, dancing, and song, which sounds a lot like what’s going on in San Francisco.

So, on the first day of his African adventure, Barack Obama, oftentimes misidentified as a long-lost son of Kenya, is busily attending to the people’s business.  As America grapples with the inexplicable damage he’s causing here at home, he’s making his way through sub-Saharan Africa hawking homosexuality, insulting African leaders, defying Islam, and making sure the wife, kids, mother-in-law, and niece are having a great time running up the taxpayers’ tab.

Wrong is wrong even if everybody’s wrong

right-wayOriginally posted at Live Action News

When I was a kid, my father used to say to me, “Right is right even if nobody’s right, and wrong is wrong even if everybody’s wrong.” That pearl of wisdom really stuck with me. Now, as an adult, and being the type of black-and-white person that I am, I’m extremely troubled by how moral relativism is destroying the fabric of society. My unwavering conviction and 34 years of Bible-believing Christianity inform my belief that fallible people acting as autonomous gods can only cause much suffering for everyone, regardless of what they believe.

Modern society has devolved to the point where the right to do whatever you want takes precedence over doing what is actually right. Killing unborn babies has morphed into the “right to choose,” sodomy has mutated into gay rights, and bilking the system as a way of life more than seven generations after the fact has become the right to reparations for slavery.

Double-destruction has befallen us, because the Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Moral relativism has delivered “woe” to those who refuse to acknowledge the true difference between right and wrong.

Thirty years ago, I had a conversation with a moral relativist that I’ve never forgotten. The young man was indignant that I dared to suggest that there are moral absolutes. My argument was that the Bible says that human beings intrinsically know the difference between right and wrong, indicating that, like it or not, there are standards. My point was that moral relativism is merely an effort to quell the conscience and make excuses for a sin nature that, without the constraints of God’s truth, is capable of fantasizing, stalking, trapping, and then cannibalizing another human being.

The moral relativist continued to stress that there are no moral absolutes and that the concept of right and wrong is relative to many factors. His premise was that the individual, not God or others, should judge personal truth. That’s when I asked him, “Oh, so if you lived next-door to a child molester and they felt that having sex with a five-year-old was acceptable, you’d be fine with them sexually abusing your child?”

My stammering opponent responded to that absurdity by saying, “That’s taking things a little too far!” I then asked, “Are you saying there is a standard for right and wrong, and the difference is that you get to set the standard?” That question was followed by a couple of seconds of heavy silence. I persisted: “So, in your opinion, raping children is wrong? Therefore, even though you don’t want God or society to impose their morality on you, you’re comfortable imposing your morality on the pervert with a lecherous eye on your preschooler?”

Shocking as it may sound, that particular person was so steeped in the desire not to judge or offend that he actually said, “Well, I guess I really couldn’t say anything, because it wouldn’t be my right to impose my standards on the guy next-door just because he likes to have sex with children.” For the committed moral relativist, chancing sacrificing his child to a molester is certainly a high price to be willing to pay to preserve the right to retain subjective (and in this case, disgusting) preference.

Currently, Americans live in a culture where individuals arrive at conclusions based on limited life experience, a faulty knowledge base, and ambivalent emotions, all of which are influenced by lies, skewed perception, and human weakness. Add to that the growing belief that moral values are not divinely mandated or commonly relevant, and you have a recipe for disaster.

That’s why, when I read stories like the one where an Oklahoma mother and her 11-year-old son were arrested after the little boy purportedly raped his 6-year-old sister and her mother told her not to tell anyone, I’m not shocked.

What’s shocking is the public’s response to a sexualized youngster raised in an atmosphere void of moral restraint acting accordingly. A young child violates his little sister, and the culture that’s guilty of fostering degenerate behavior asks why?

The bigger question here isn’t why things like that happen, but rather who among us has the right to say that what the boy did was wrong. Who has the right to tell a mother that failing to report forced juvenile incest is unacceptable? Isn’t drawing an ethical line in the sand and saying that there is something very wrong with a child raping a sibling and their mother attempting to cover it up imposing a standard of morality on a family whose measure of decency may be different from our own?

By adhering to the tenet of moral relativism alone, moral relativists and their ilk have zero right to oppose any kind of behavior, even if such perverse or evil conduct shocks them or negatively impacts their lives. Remember, the price of subjective preference can be very high.

The older I get, the more I understand what my father was saying. Attempting to run a society based on the belief that morality’s canon is independently decided upon seems like a great idea until some lunatic shoots up an elementary school or a prepubescent brother rapes his little sister. That is when the ramifications of a misguided ideology that preaches the abolishment of moral absolutes end up proving that “right is right even if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.”

Barack ‘Bad Fruit’ Obama Redefines Christianity

Originally posted at American Thinker

Jesus told His followers that the way to recognize Christian brethren is by inspecting fruit.  Jesus said, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.”  Thus, “by their fruit you will recognize them.”

At the National Prayer Breakfast, partial “bitter clinger” Barack Obama, missing only a gun, tried to tell the crowd of 3,000 that he was a Scripture-quoting, Bible-toting Christian.  Using the Word of God to justify the advancement of liberal policy, the president linked left-wing economic policy with obedience to Scripture and, by doing so, dared critics to disagree with God.

As the foundation of his faith, Obama referenced a key Scripture from Genesis wherein God asked Cain, after Cain killed his own brother, “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain replied, “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”

The president said his faith is based on “[l]iving by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need.”  He maintained that those values are the ones that define his “faith journey,” which has also translated into “policies that support research to fight disease and support foreign aid.”

Seems the president hasn’t read the Scripture that says, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much,” because Obama-style Christianity is yet to acknowledge the glaring contradiction in wanting to be trusted with the world’s poor while disregarding the “very little” needs of a blood brother, impoverished and living in squalor in a Kenya slum.

Nonetheless, the president said that his faith also inspires him to voluntarily “give up some of the tax breaks” he enjoys.  If Obama has his way, the rest of America will not be afforded the gratification of similar voluntary charitable contributions.  In essence, establishing governmental mandates to support liberal causes is a religion unto itself, whose dogma redirects tithing from the faith community to the federal government, where alms gathered under compulsion are distributed through benevolent bureaucracy.

After the collection plate is filled, give-up-the-tax-break proceeds fund brother’s-keeper essentials like abortion, contraception, sterilization, and fighting disease with an ever-expanding food stamp program.

Barack Obama deciding to openly declare that Jesus applauds the “yes we can” brand has opened him up to public scrutiny.  By exploiting biblical Christianity for political gain, he has invited examination from, among others, Republican presidential hopeful and devout Christian Rick Santorum, who dared broach the subject of the president’s innovative “theology.”

More recently, on Morning Joe, Reverend Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, a man Obama allegedly prayed with, also compared the president’s words against the backdrop of his actions.  Based on the condition of some wormy fruit, as diplomatically as he could, Graham cast serious doubt on the state of Barack Obama’s tree and expressed uncertainty as to whether the latter is really a Christian.

Graham did confirm his belief that Rick Santorum was “a man of faith … because his values are so clear on moral issues.”  About Santorum, Graham said, “I just appreciate the moral stances he takes on things,” a sentiment Reverend Graham did not express when speaking about Barack Obama.

Under close examination, America’s self-described “Christian” president’s fruit includes anti-Christian stances such as condoning and supporting gay marriage, calling Romans 1:26-27 an “obscure passage,” and being vehemently pro-choice.  The president even opposes saving the lives of infants born alive during botched abortions, which translates into infanticide.

To Christian brethren who deem contraceptive and abortion anathema, in lieu of God’s will, Obama has instituted governmental doctrine by foisting his will on people of faith, denying those with whom he supposedly identifies the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Someone should remind the president that immediately following the “my brother’s keeper” verse in Genesis, when Cain claimed he didn’t know the whereabouts of the brother he had murdered, the Lord knew and said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”

Besides the blood of unborn children crying out from the ground, in addition to being a champion of choice, the “peacemaker” president has condoned and helped spread racial division.  While claiming to be a follower of Christ, Obama criticizes, disrespects, and has all but turned his back on Israel, the “apple of God’s eye.”  Against Isaac and the nation of Israel, Barack Hussein Obama has sided almost exclusively with Ishmael.

On his first Christmas in the White House, Barack Obama requested that the Nativity scene be removed from the East Room — a request that was overridden.  Shockingly, when speaking in Christian venues, he has also requested that the crucifix, the universal symbol of Christianity, be obscured from view.  On more than one occasion, the president has misquoted Scripture, and while he often decries injustice toward Muslims, he has yet to speak on behalf of Christians being persecuted worldwide.

Franklin Graham rightly pointed out that under close inspection Obama appears to have some problematic fruit.  Graham said, “Under President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems more concerned about them than the Christians being murdered in the Muslim countries.”

Caring for the poor, fighting disease, supporting foreign aid, and publicly declaring the sanctimonious attitude of being willing to give up tax breaks are the noble aspirations that President Obama claims define his pick-and-choose religion.  Barack Obama’s customized Christianity is such that it discounts and mockingly downplays the Sermon on the Mount and then, in order to advance gay rights, resurrects and convolutes Jesus’ teaching of the Beatitudes.

Clearly, the President feels at ease redefining everything from “fairness” to the “American dream” to “traditional marriage,” all the way to the foundational tenets that define America.  But fear not — in due time, the God of the Bible will surely expose the folly of those who, in an attempt to justify a liberal agenda, exploit Scripture and attempt to redefine Christianity.

Gwyneth the Goop Girl

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

College drop-out know-it-all, do-it-all Gwyneth Paltrow is the epitome of a spoiled Hollywood liberal brat who was raised in privilege, never told no, and made to believe her every thought was brilliant. The Paltrows must have been the type of parents who handed out trophies to the losing soccer team, because daughter Gwyneth is a hopeless victim of undeserved “Good job-ism” gone wild.

An average kid with moderate talent, since her late teens, between acting, mothering, cooking, and singing, Gwyneth Paltrow has subjected America to incessant rounds of painful “No wait…let me start again,” off-tempo renditions of Für Elise followed by impromptu tap-dancing exhibitions by a grown woman who might as well be dressed in a tight pink tutu.

Gwynie (I like to call her Gwynie) is an attractive woman with the superior gift of imitating British accents.  Ms. Paltrow started her career in Hollywood when her mother, actress Blythe Danner, and her father, the late director Bruce Paltrow, together with family friend Steven Spielberg brokered a deal and got her a starring gig in the movies at 19 years of age.

An unabashed recipient of Hollywood nepotism, after winning an Academy Award for Shakespeare in Love Gwyneth was crowned the “Muse” of Miramax studios by film producer Harvey Weinstein.  Since that day, Gwyneth has been nothing short of unbearable.

Raised in Massachusetts, Gwynie moved back to Los Angeles where her career and love life with Brad Pitt took off. Paltrow traveled the world, and now speaks British-style English, French, Spanish, and a little Italian. Gwen even married a temperamental British rock star – Chris Martin of Coldplay – who she’d never have met without the benefit of a VIP backstage pass.

After adopting London as her new home, Ms. Gwyneth, in classic Madonna I’m Evita-I’m British-I’m a single mom to a couple of African kids- mode, dissed America, set up house, and practiced her fake English accent while taking children Apple and Moses to buy groceries in trendy London food shops.

Over the years the only thing more irritating than Paltrow feigning a British accent in the movie Sliding Doors was seeing her accepted as a gourmet cook. Gwyneth Paltrow even traveled with Mario Batali through Spain and lunched with Ina Garten, the “I’m cooking a fabulous dinner for Hamptons friend Gwyneth” Barefoot Contessa.

After soaking fava beans became too much of a chore, Ms. Paltrow re-focused and said “I could do that. I bet I could do that,” and decided to resuscitate her former career as a Duet singer, but not just a singer, a country singer, which right there was weird enough for a woman who spent so much of her life practicing speaking with a British accent. Nevertheless, two weeks into her revitalized singing career golden child Gwyneth was starring in the movie Country Strong.

Soon after, Paltrow showed up on the 2011 Grammy Awards singing “Forget You” with the Muppets and Cee Lo Green and vamping around in a precociously overconfident number on Glee.  Mrs. Coldplay’s routine was rivaled only by Katie Holmes embarrassing herself while torturing the nation on So You Think You can Dance.

The desire to share her varied gifts must have motivated Paltrow to go beyond her expertise in thespianism, Epicureanism, and crooning, because in addition to mastering all three, Paltrow created Goop.com, a place where a Renaissance woman could branch out, blog, and author an informative newsletter.

At Goop.com, the artiste/chef/chanteuse tells readers: “Make, Go, Get, Do, Be and See.”  The only way to describe the venture is that Goop is authored by an overindulged, self-impressed, spoiled rich kid sharing navel-gazing insights into experiences, locations, products, and ideas few people will ever encounter, let alone be able to afford.  Can anyone say “Clueless?”

Paltrow’s Oprah-style New Age views are a cacophony of beliefs similar to the Cheese Board area of Goop’s “Make” section. While Gwyneth’s channeling of Tammy Wynette, making Duck Ragu, recommending skin products from a French pharmacy, and explaining the Year of the Tiger is irritating, it is still all relatively harmless. However, her views on religion, philosophy and sexuality step out of the Christian Louboutin realm and into the downright unappreciated.

Case in point: Gwyneth recently introduced her seven year-old daughter Apple, whose name was chosen because it was “Biblical,” to the idea of lesbianism. Mom assured the tyke that her classmate, who had two Mommies, was “lucky,” after which she implied on Goop that she didn’t know the answer to the question: “What does it actually say in the bible that will cause some people to be upset by my line of thinking?”  You mean besides confusing a first grader?

I don’t buy the feigned perplexed confusion, because based on Gwyneth Paltrow’s history the query was more of a challenge than a question.  It’s likely that Paltrow has already resolved the issue and feels totally confident that, even if the Bible and God Himself doesn’t support her “line of thinking,” hers is still the right answer, because in Gwyneth Paltrow’s superior world her answer is correct simply because it’s hers.

%d bloggers like this: