ACLU Pushes The Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage

From: The Pen of Gary Bauer

Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, thinks so. In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Romero says, “Clearly, the momentum is on our side,” and he calls the nationwide legalization of same-sex “marriage” a “sure thing.” According to Romero, the issue is the ACLU’s top priority, “behind only national-security issues.” That’s very telling. The ACLU has been leading the charge to expose our national security secrets in the war against Islamofascism, shutting down GITMO and pursuing the absurd notion that terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield deserve the same constitutional protections as American citizens. Undermining our national security is the ACLU’s first priority; undermining our cultural security, its second.

While it is undeniable that the drive for same-sex “marriage” has picked up steam in recent months, it is also undeniable that the upsurge is a direct consequence of recent elections. The militant homosexual rights movement had a very clear strategy to fundamentally alter the political environment in key states by defeating pro-family, pro-traditional marriage legislators. If just one or two of them could be defeated, it would send the message that supporters of traditional marriage had a bull’s eye on their backs, creating a chilling effect on sympathetic politicians. If enough could be defeated, it could potentially change the makeup of the state legislature, putting pro-homosexual rights candidates in control – politicians who would use their power to prevent marriage protection amendments from getting on the ballot. That is exactly what happened as a result of the 2006 elections in Iowa and in other states where “gay marriage” has advanced in recent months.

Is same-sex “marriage” inevitable? Romero is right when he says that the momentum is on his side. But, I’m not willing to concede that the coast-to-coast redefinition of marriage in America is “inevitable.” As we saw in California, the courts do not get the final say. The United States Supreme Court once declared slavery to be legal. But the people, through the democratic process, amended the Constitution to guarantee no man could be held as property. The Supreme Court declared in 1973 that our unborn children had no rights we were bound to respect. But men and women of faith have fought the good fight for more than three decades, and, as recent polls indicate, we are changing hearts and minds.

If pastors speak up and if men and women of faith and of all races and backgrounds unite to defend the institution of marriage as it has existed from the dawn of civilization, I believe we will prevail. The culture war is real and the public policies that we must all live under are determined by the men and women we elect to public office. This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to remain engaged in the public policy battles and to speak up and defend their values.

“The Right To Freedom Being The Gift Of God”

John Adams

Quoting John Adams:

“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”

Elementary Thoughts: Rebellion – Part 5

If we only viewed adults and children in the context of the difference in their size, it would be difficult to imagine parents being intimidated by their offspring. Yet, the second reason I am offering as to why parents discipline their children inconsistently is just that. I have seen this so often in my career as an educator that I feel it is important to mention it here.

Children seem to have a special instinct which allows them to discover our character flaws. They may not be able to explain it but they are capable of manipulating our weaknesses to their advantage.

For instance, if you happen to be one of the many adults who is too embarrassed to discipline a child in a public place, you may have found that these are the times your child chooses for a confrontation. If you are reluctant to stop the car and deal with it, your children probably start an argument with each other, or you, as soon as you leave the driveway. Unconsciously, we teach our children the art of intimidation and manipulation.

Donald was a thin, dark haired boy who understood how to get what he wanted. As a small child, he had learned that standing up to mom and dad with a well-timed temper tantrum usually enabled him to obtain his way. Not only had he thoroughly intimidated his mom and dad with his behavior over the years, but he had trained them to become his “rescuers.”

By the time Donald was kindergarten age, he had become conditioned to having his own way in any conflict of wills with adults. When placed in the environment of the classroom, however, he found his teachers more difficult to deal with than his parents. It was in kindergarten that he discovered that by telling his side of the story in just the right way (lying) to his parents, using the emotions he had mastered so well for his frequent tantrums, he could use his parents to run “interference” and “rescue” him from the consequences of any unpleasant situation he had gotten into with the adults at school. Over the years, it appeared as if Donald’s parents, particularly his mom, were daily visitors to his teachers’ classes. Donald’s family earned quite a reputation among the staff of the school.

As Donald grew older, however, the rescue attempts by his parents became increasingly less successful as the situations Donald found himself in became more and more serious. The absence of self discipline and lack of respect for adult authority finally brought him into conflict with the police. His parents could only express regrets and, of course, make excuses.

When Donald was a small child and his parents began the pattern of surrendering to his demands and tantrums, they were really only trying to keep the peace of their household in tact. Like many young parents, they had been confused by the many popular modern myths of child rearing to the point that their attempts at discipline were inconsistent and impotent. On the one hand they feared that if they were too strict in their discipline they might emotionally scar their child. On the other hand they desperately longed for a peaceful family relationship with their son. They were unsure of themselves and what the consequences for Donald’s inappropriate behaviors should be used. They were also too embarrassed to seek advice from friends or professionals. They did not want to appear as if they did not know what they were doing. Therefore, they adopted the policy (excuse) of dealing with Donald as a miniature adult who was entitled to express his opinions and demands as he saw them. After all, they believed that Donald was a “gifted” child and they did not want to hamper the development of his “giftedness.” Compromise became their chief strategy for keeping peace at home.

The problem with compromise in Donald’s family, however, was that he was a better negotiator than his mom and dad. He negotiated (threw tantrums) from the advantage of knowing exactly what he wanted at the time he wanted it. His parents had no clear vision of what they wanted in these situations except that they did not want to look bad in front of other adults and wanted to restore peace as quickly as possible. They had no strategy for dealing with their son’s inappropriate behavior. The result was that they negotiated away their responsibility for teaching their son that he could not always have things his own way for the short-term prospect of ending another conflict. His parents’ selfishness (i.e. unwillingness to seek counsel because of pride [arrogance]and desire for peace at any price) taught Donald to view rebellion as a practical means of attaining what he wanted.

Hopefully, you do not find yourself tending to be either too busy or too intimidated to consistently discipline your children. If you recognize some symptoms above as representative of your own behaviors as a parent, you need to reestablish and clarify your goals for the sake of the future of your children.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about becoming the type of parent that believes they must determine specifically every step and detail of their child’s life. I am talking about the development of character and self-discipline. I am talking about the legacy of personal integrity and ethical principles you wish to pass on to your children. (Continued tomorrow)

He Who Controls The Past Controls The Future

Quoting Gary North:

There is no such thing as a free lunch or a free ride. Somebody must pay. The supreme goal of politics is to manage the flow of information so that those who pay do not complain. Successful politics is like a mosquito’s bite: the victim itches only after his blood is gone, along with the mosquito.

In George Orwell’s novel, “1984,” Winston Smith worked in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth. His job was to drop printed records of politically incorrect facts down the memory hole. The memory hole destroyed public traces of the now- inconvenient record of the past, thereby rectifying the past. His life’s work was based on this principle: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Muslim Terrorists Demand Christians Either Convert, Pay A Fine, Leave The Country, Or Die

A Church center in Pakistan’s eastern city of Lahore has been threatened with a suicide bomb attack, one of a series of intimidating messages given to Christians as the country’s security crisis worsens. The threat was delivered by two masked men on a motorbike to the National Catholic Office for Social Communications. The message said:

“We know that you and those at the recording studio are Christians. We warn you to leave this area, [or] embrace Islam, [or] pay 1,500,000 rupees (US$18,750) or be ready to die in a suicide bomb attack.”

The threats against these Christians are based on Islamic texts:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” — Muhammad (Sahih Muslim 4294)

So, A Politician And A Serial Killer Go Into A Bar. . . .

From: The Pen of Andrew Malcolm

Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.

Kouri, who’s a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.

These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.

But — and here’s the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion — these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)

Continue reading. . . .

The Bible Speaks Of Hell

From: The Pen of Robert G. Lee

Many there are who, with ridicule of those who disagree, declare that there is no Hell. Atheists tell us that we die like dogs -that our souls perish with our bodies -that when the earth has swallowed us up, we become part and parcel with clay; and that is the end of the whole matter. We, believing not what the atheists say, doubt if the atheists believe themselves. . . .

Now let me ask, if there is no Hell, is not the Bible a bundle of blunders, a myth, a book of fairy tales? Are not the prophets, who spoke of God’s mercy, liars? If there is no Hell, does not Jesus Himself deserve to wear the label of the impostor? Into the valley of Hinnom, outside the city of Jerusalem, the Jews threw the refuse of the city and the dead carcasses of animals -where the worms would eat them and a fire was kept continually burning. Jesus used this great valley of offal to describe the awful reality of Hell.

“And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off” it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:43-44)

If there is no Hell, is not Calvary, with all its suffering and sacrifice and finished atoning work, a blunder and all the voices thereof a babel of incoherence? By every contemptuous mouthful of spit that befouled His face, by every hair of His beard which cruel fingers tore from His cheeks, by every bruise of His face, by every mark of the scourge upon His back, by every thorn that punctured His brow, by every nail that held Him to the tree, by every breath He drew which was a pang of death, by every beat of His heart which was a throb of agony -by all the shadows that covered the earth when black midnight came at noon-day, we say that if Calvary be not the way of escape from an eternal Hell, then Calvary is a mistake!

It is not credible that the Son of God should have become man and died on the cross merely to save men from the short and temporal consequences of sin. The infinity of the sacrifice implies as infinity of punishment as that from which the sacrifice was intended to deliver those who would accept the sacrifice. If a man accepts the atonement of Christ -how can he doubt the dogma of Hell? Let us ask, can there be a Heaven if there be no Hell? The Bible, book above and beyond all books as a river is beyond all books as a river is beyond a rill in reach speaks of Heaven. But the same Bible also speaks of Hell. The same Bible that speaks of the glories and bliss of Heaven speaks of the woes and pains and miseries of Hell-as the portion of those who reject Christ.

Read more. . . .