In honor of Discovery channel's Shark Week and the Democrats going absolutely bat guano insane in their "argumentation" against Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan, we here at the Triangle have declared this week JUMP THE SHARK WEEK. Why? Why not! But since you asked so politely, it's really clear the the reality distortion field that has enveloped the entire Left Character Assassination Machine has become virtually cosmic.
For example, let's remember that, according to the Dems, Mitt Romney is so powerful and diabolical that he can leave a job in 1999, go into the future and give a woman cancer and cause her death in 2006, and then come back into reality and space-time just in time to kill off the rest of the poor and deject huddled masses. He then, of course, would finish it off with a nice cigar and a cognac. He then would reappear in our time continuum in time to save the 2002 winter olympics and plan his eventual takeover of the world while daily dining on babies and drinking the tears of depressed sweatshop workers.
Perhaps I am exaggerating the Democrat's fears of Mitt Romney. But what else would explain their willingness to follow and support a man who has utterly failed in each and every possible way to live up to the goals he set for himself. I refer you to one statement to the effect of "Well, if I don't turn things around in three years we'll be overrun by baby eating, cancer causing super-villains!"
And what about the plans Romney has to sell all non-Mormons to a group of space aliens for the cost of settling all of the United State's debts. Oh, wait? That was the Israelis. Uh, no, it was actually some hidden professor in the halls of Obama's past that he won't let us know about. Does that ring a Bell? Maybe a Derek Bell? Must be hidden in the closet with all of those pictures of the dead Usama, Barack's first communion Quran and all of the pictures of those freaky "composite" people he mentions in his biographies. Didn't that used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder?
So what's the point of all of this? In all of the attempts to JUMP THE SHARK today, I haven't even come close to what Barack, David Plouffe, Bill Burton, Stephanie Cutter and all of his other hench-type persons did this week. Not even close.
This is a parody of a song by a group called Gotye called "Somebody That I Used To Know."
It is a an excellent parody, and you can see the original here if you are haven't heard it.
This tells the story of all the young hope-and-changers and what happened after they voted for O. Just like the original song, they feel like jilted lovers, left out in the cold and not just forgotten, but coldly rejected. Oh, where is that Obama they used to know? He never really was...
A breakthrough is waiting for those who persevere. If you have stopped praying, receive fresh grace to pray again.
George Mueller, the great 19th-century British evangelist, prayed in more than $7 million during his lifetime to feed the thousands of orphans in his care. He didn't believe in telling people about his financial needs, yet he always had enough to pay his enormous grocery bill because God supernaturally provided.
But Mueller’s faith was stretched in other ways. He prayed regularly over a list of five people he wanted to see converted to faith in Jesus. The first man was saved after five years. The second and third men converted to Christ after 10 years. The fourth man was saved after 25 years of consistent prayer.
“Sometimes construction crews in my city erect large flashing signs along the highway near my house. All drivers groan when they see the message: ‘EXPECT DELAYS.’ Life is littered with these signs, and Jesus said they are part of our training process.”
But here’s the clincher: Mueller prayed for the fifth man’s conversion for a whopping 52 years. The friend made a profession of faith in Christ a few months after Mueller’s funeral!
This story challenges me to the core because I’m so impatient. I’m guilty of revving my engine at stoplights and tapping my foot when my Internet connection is slow. Technology is a blessing, but it has also spoiled me into thinking I can get spiritual results as fast as I want them.
Would you pray about something consistently for 52 years if there was no sign an answer was coming? I started praying about some big requests three years ago, and I realized recently that I had grown weary of the process. Prayer had become painful. Doubts began smothering my dreams. I felt like giving up, but God spoke three simple truths to my heart. They might help you:
1. God never said this would be easy. Jesus gave us many wonderful, rosy promises, but He also said: “In the world you have tribulation” (John 16:33, NASB). That’s not a Scripture you will find embroidered on a pillow or inscribed on a flowery greeting card. But it’s a guarantee. Anybody who attempts something great for God will face difficulties.
Sometimes construction crews in my city erect large flashing signs along the highway near my house. All drivers groan when they see the message: “EXPECT DELAYS.” Life is littered with these signs, and Jesus said they are part of our training process. If Abraham and Sarah had to wait 25 years for the birth of their promised heir, why do we think our answers should be instant?
2. You must persevere if you want to receive. Perseverance is one of those archaic words we’ve stripped from our vocabulary. Waiting is a weird concept for people in the 21st century who have movies-on-demand. If someone tells us to wait, we just find an app on our phone to speed up the process.
But there is no shortcut when it comes to receiving God’s answers. The definition of perseverance is "steady persistence in a course of action or purpose, especially in spite of difficulties, obstacles or discouragement." Faith is painful because God is stretching our spiritual capacity to receive. Press through the pain! There is gain on the other side.
Speaking of prayer, Jesus said: “Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking [reverently] and [the door] will be opened to you” (Matt. 7:7, AMP). In other words, don’t stop praying no matter how long the answer takes.
3. The end result of faith is a larger territory. When Isaac sojourned in the land of Gerar, the Bible says he re-dug the wells of his father and then dug new wells. After he dug the first two, the Philistines quarreled with Isaac and tried to claim ownership of the water. But when Isaac dug a third time, the fighting stopped and he named the new well “Rehoboth,” which means “a broad place” (see Gen. 26:18-24).
Isaac could have become discouraged after the first well-digging fiasco. Many people back off at the first sign of a fight, but Isaac didn’t let the quarrels stop him. He dug a second time and hit yet another roadblock. But he kept on digging. When the breakthrough occurred, Isaac declared: “At last the Lord has made room for us, and we will be fruitful in the land” (26:22, NASB).
The lesson Isaac learned is still part of our faith curriculum today. There is no getting around it. We must keep on believing when circumstances tell us to quit. We must stretch our faith when it feels like we have no more stretch left. We must pray beyond the delay.
George Mueller said: “God delights to increase the faith of His children. We ought, instead of wanting no trials before victory, no exercise for patience, to be willing to take them from God's hands as a means. Trials, obstacles, difficulties and sometimes defeats, are the very food of faith.”
If you have grown weary, or even if you have quit believing, receive fresh grace to pray again. Let patience have its perfect work. God will fortify your faith and empower you to receive a miraculous breakthrough.
J. Lee Grady is the former editor of Charisma and the director of The Mordecai Project. You can follow him on Twitter at leegrady.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, almost one in three Americans under the age of 30 doubt that God exists, while, in contrast, the figure for Americans over the age of 65 is less than one in ten. Could there be a connection between the fatherlessness of this younger generation and their struggles with faith? According to a theory called “the psychology of atheism,” the answer might well be yes.
But first, some caveats. 1) There are many reasons why people struggle with the issue of faith, so it would be wrong to think that “one size fits all.” 2) The highest percentage of fatherlessness is found in the African American community, and yet African Americans tend to be more religiously oriented than other population sectors. 3) It cannot be denied that a large portion of contemporary American Christianity is often superficial, hypocritical, and powerless (in terms of radical life transformation), and these serious defects certainly account for some of the faith struggles experienced by American young people. That being said, it is important to probe the connection between fatherlessness and faithlessness.
In 1999, New York University professor Paul C. Vitz, a former atheist himself, wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. In it, he argued that the absence of a father or the presence of a defective father (say, a weak, cowardly father or an abusive father) often played a major role in the development of the atheism of the child (or grownup). A similar argument was made by journalist John P. Koster, Jr., in his 1989 book The Atheist Syndrome.
To be clear, these authors are not denying that atheists claim to have strong, rational reasons for their atheism. Instead, Vitz and Koster argue that what lies at the root of atheism is often the lack of a solid father figure, thereby allowing unbelief to become dominant later in life (or even in childhood).
According to Vitz, “an atheist’s disappointment in and resentment of his own father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God,” a theory Vitz developed while reading the biographies of well-known atheists. He calls it the “defective father” hypothesis.
Under the category of “Dead Fathers,” Vitz lists famous atheists like Nietzsche, Hume, Russell, Sartre, and Camus; under “Abusive and Weak Fathers” he lists Hobbes, Voltaire, Freud, and Wells, among others. He then compares their stories with the stories of theists like Pascal, Wilberforce, Kierkegaard, Chesterton, Buber, Barth, Bonhoeffer, and others, before reviewing apparent exceptions to his theory.
Speaking of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Vitz notes that her son, William, “claims that he did not know why his mother hated her father so much – but hate him she did. In the opening chapter of the book, he reports a very ugly fight in which O’Hair attempted to kill her father with a ten-inch butcher knife. She failed but screamed, ‘I’ll see you dead. I’ll get you yet. I’ll walk on your grave.’” Does this remind you of her desire to eliminate God from American life?
Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, “I have absolutely no knowledge of atheism as an outcome of reasoning, still less an event; with me it is obvious by instinct.” As a young boy, Nietzsche was very close to his father, who was a pastor, but he died shortly before Nietzsche’s fifth birthday, having suffered the previous year from a brain disease.
In his early teens, Nietzsche wrote about the agony he experienced when his father died, noting that, “In everything God has led me safely as a father leads his weak child. . . . Like a child I trust in his grace.” So, for the teenage Nietzsche, God was just like a loving father. Unfortunately, Nietzsche also remembered his father as weak and sickly, and it was this image, Vitz claims, that Nietzsche “also associated, naturally enough, with his father’s Christianity. . . . It is therefore not hard to view Nietzsche’s rejection of God and Christianity as a rejection of the weakness of his father,” a father who abandoned him by death when he was but a little boy.
As for H. G. Wells, he was raised by an irresponsible and often absentee father (named Joe) and by a mother whose faith collapsed when her 9-year-old daughter died suddenly from appendicitis two years before Wells was born. Vitz notes, “Whether it was Joe the father or God the Father who gave no answer seems to make no difference to Wells, because for him both were equally absent.”
Describing his mother’s faith struggle in his autobiography, Wells wrote, “My father was away at cricket, and I think she realized more and more acutely as the years dragged on without material alleviation, that Our Father and Our Lord . . . were also away, playing perhaps at their own sort of cricket in some remote quarter of the starry universe.”
Returning to our day, the U. S. Census Bureau reports that as of 2011, one third of American children are growing up without their biological father, and over the last 50 years, the number of babies born to unwed mothers has jumped from 5 percent to 40 percent.
Could it be, then, that there really is a connection between the lack of fathers and the lack of faith among young Americans?
via Townhall.com
Seems like Michael Brown is really getting to the core of what is really going on in our culture, especially lately. The Vitz book he mentions is excellent, by the way. - Cliff @the Triangle
Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.
Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.
*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.
*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.
*Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.
*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
*Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.
*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.
"We do our Lord an injustice when we suppose that He wrought all His mighty acts, and showed Himself strong for those in the early time, but doth not perform wonders or lay bare His arm for the saints who are now upon the earth...Surely the goodness of God has been the same to us as to the saints of old."
Ted Haggard, Larry Brinkin, And Glaring Media Bias
by Dr. Michael Brown
According to published reports, when Larry Brinkin was arrested two weeks ago, the police found “images of year-old infants subjected to sodomy and oral sex, and perverse racial comments (Brinkin’s email: ‘I loved especially the 2 year old n----- getting nailed. Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond b---- is going to get. White Power! White Supremacy! White D--- Rules!’).” Yet the media has barely reported this terribly disturbing incident.
But, you ask, who was Larry Brinkin? He was “a central figure in the gay rights movement,” a man who was so influential that, “The San Francisco board of supervisors actually gave a ‘Larry Brinkin Week’ in February 2010 upon his retirement.” It was Brinkin who first used the term “domestic partnerships” in a legal dispute, marking a watershed moment in gay activist history, yet news of his alleged crimes against infants and children, not to mention his alleged White Supremacist leanings, has received very little media attention.
Is there a double standard here? Imagine what the media would be doing if Brinkin had been a conservative Christian leader.
When evangelical leader Ted Haggard fell, the media was quick to pounce, suggesting that this exposed the corrupt nature of evangelical Christianity as a whole. And media leaders have done this repeatedly whenever there has been a scandal connected to an evangelical (or Catholic) leader, and the news is blared from the headlines. But where, I ask you, is the outrage or the front page news when a gay leader commits atrocities such as those allegedly committed by Larry Brinkin? And why isn’t the media claiming that Brinkin’s transgressions expose the corrupt nature of gay activism as a whole?
The failure of a Christian leader is considered endemic and representative; the failure of a gay leader is considered an aberrant exception. Why the unequal treatment? more...
Is it possible that we are already in a global recession but just don’t know it yet? And is the U.S. itself — still the epicenter of the world economy — standing on the front edge of another recession?
I sincerely hope I’m wrong. But warning signs are everywhere.
The eurozone economy is flat on its back. Greece may be headed for a political crackup and an exit from the euro and European Union. Deposit runs in Greece and elsewhere are beginning, and a credit freeze throughout the continent is not out of the question. Meanwhile, emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil are slumping.
Here at home, ex-Clinton strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg sent a memo to President Obama telling him that his campaign message of slow and steady recovery progress is out of touch with Main Street America. They’re right. Of course, Obama’s “private sector is doing just fine” statement is part and parcel of his disconnect from economic reality.
And the reality isn’t good. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, take a look at the numbers:
Job growth has been slipping badly for three months. Retail sales and factory orders are down two straight months. Real incomes are flat. Household wealth is way underwater from the housing collapse, dropping nearly 40 percent in the last three measured years. And GDP was an anemic 1.9 percent in the first quarter. Nearly all leading Wall Street economists are marking down their second-quarter estimates to 2 percent or less.
But here’s the key point: 2 percent growth is not a recovery. Many economists would call it a growth recession. When you get that low there’s little margin for error. A shock from Europe, an inventory selloff in the U.S., or almost any unexpected event could push us back into negative territory for an official double-dip recession.
The last saving grace for the U.S.? Business sales and profits are still trending higher, although GDP-measured profits did fall in the first quarter. That needs to be watched carefully.
That said, a recent IBD poll shows that the number of households with at least one person looking for employment is 23 percent. That translates to 30 million people looking for work. That’s not a recovery.
I can think of two major reasons for the latest economic stall — even inside an overall recovery rate that’s only half the normal pace of post-WWII recoveries. First is the deflationary impact of a sharp, nearly 10 percent rise in the exchange value of the dollar relative to the euro. That’s imparting a deflationary influence on the economy, where both import and producer prices have recently turned negative. The good side of commodity deflation is that oil and retail gas prices have fallen considerably; the bad side is that manufacturers may hold back production and that debtors have to climb out of deeper holes.
As someone who always touts the merits of a strong King Dollar, why am I complaining now that we have one? That’s my second reason for the latest economic stall: King Dollar is not being accompanied by lower tax rates.
The original supply-side growth model argued for a strong dollar and lower taxes, where the former keeps prices stable and the latter provides fresh growth incentives. But instead of easier taxes, a huge tax-hike cliff looms. Big problem. Wrong model. Anti-growth.
As the Bush era tax cuts expire at year end, so do the temporary payroll tax cut and the alternative minimum tax patch. By some estimates, over $400 billion in cash will be pulled out of the economy in 2013, along with a rollback of growth-oriented, marginal-tax-rate incentives. It’s hard to quantify, but it’s quite possible that business hiring plans and consumer-spending expectations have been put on hold until folks can figure out future tax policy.
All this is why the tax-cliff problem needs to be solved immediately. If the tax cuts are extended sooner rather than later, the economy might straighten out faster than most folks think. But House Speaker John Boehner told me that while he’s ready to talk to President Obama, the phone isn’t ringing. And while House Republicans are expected to pass a tax-cut extension in July, it won’t go anywhere without White House support.
Unfortunately, the president is still talking about tax hikes on the rich. He should listen to Bill Clinton who argues for a full tax-cut extension to stop recession. If we wait until after the election to address the tax cliff, we will face uncertainty and chaos, bringing us closer to recession.
Isn’t there some way to nip this worst-case outcome in the bud?
Secretary of Defense the Honorable Leon Panetta addresses service members at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Marc I. Lane/Released)
The Pentagon is set to salute gay and lesbian troops by marking June as Gay Pride Month.
The move comes nine months after the Obama administration's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that banned gay troops from openly serving in the military.
"We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot ... a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal," President Obama said after the repeal.
Defense Department officials are planning the first-ever event to recognize gay troops.
They declined to give details about the event but said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta feels it's important to recognize the service of gays in the armed forces.
The move comes as legislation is being proposed in Congress to protect military chaplains who don't support gay marriage.
"The chaplains are an integral part of our defense and have been for a long time," Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the legislation, said. "And honoring the beliefs and the convictions of those people is only reasonable."
"We need to allow people to have those kinds of beliefs without being worried that they're going to get demoted or run over because they believe in something," he said
Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre say they expected the accused shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, to “come in and finish the job,” according to exclusive interviews to be broadcast on "Fox Files: The Enemy Within."
“I saw the muzzle of the weapon pointed at me about six feet away,” Pvt. George Stratton III told Fox News in his first TV interview since the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting that killed 13 and injured more than 43 others.
Stratton, who had just turned 18 at the time of the shooting, said the readiness center was turned into a battlefield bathed in blood, as the wounded crawled to the exit doors to save themselves.
“As soon as I got out the first set of doors, I got up to my knees, pushed the other door open and kneed my way out, and I got up to my feet,” he said.
Watch "Fox Files: The Enemy Within" at 10 p.m. ET Friday and 9 p.m. ET Sunday.
Stratton, who needed his family’s permission to enlist at the age of 17, thought he might be safe until he heard a soldier cry out that the shooter was following the wounded.
"He's coming around the corner with the gun, he's shooting and killing people," Stratton said. "I just sat there - felt helpless - felt hopeless waiting for this person to come in and finish the job.”
Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning was shot six times, with one bullet narrowly missing his heart. Manning said he had sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Manning paused as he described the shooter.
“Domestic enemy, I mean, that’s what this was," Manning said. "He might have wore the uniform, but he wasn’t a soldier. He didn’t act like a soldier. He tried to kill soldiers. I mean, he was an enemy – plain and simple.”
When it came to Hasan, Manning said, there was a double standard. Hasan wrote emails to radical American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – seeking advice on reconciling his Muslim faith with serving in the Army. This fact was known to the FBI.
“You could lose your security clearance in the Army for having bad credit and be kicked out of the Army. But you can't lose your security clearance for talking to a member of Al Qaeda, through e-mail. I mean, it doesn't make any sense," Manning said.
Despite calls from some members of Congress, none of the injured or murdered soldiers from the 2009 shooting has been awarded the Purple Heart.
Whoever started this meme of using this scene of Hitler raging and adding new subtitles should be applauded for having a wicked sense of humor. Let's hope that someone gets to do one for our dear leader Mr. Obama in November! Cue the ominous music...Action!
One hot summer day in 2008 I was riding around with a friend waiting for a meeting we were conducting that evening. While we were killing time we heard an interview with then candidate Mitt Romney on a local radio station here in Colorado, just days before he won the state's Republican primary. He made the most sense of any of the candidates I had heard in the lengthy interview, and I concluded that, if we just had to have a Mormon candidate that it probably wouldn't be the end of the world. But then I said to myself, and then to my friend, "but I could never vote for a Mormon."
And I continued to say that on a regular basis all the way until the election of one Barack H. Obama to the illustrious office of the Presidency of the United States in that next November. No doubt like all of you I hoped that, even though he wasn't my choice, that he would at least do a decent job, although there was no reason to think he would, owing to his extreme lack of experience in anything remotely like executive leadership. "Look at the resume, people!" I would say, wryly.
Fast forward three years later to my new life under Mr. Obama as an underemployed Walmart cashier after having been laid off in October of 2008 and having worked five different part time positions before getting my great gig at WallyWorld. I am walking through the aisles of the Home Section and I have this surprising conversation with God. I was praying that he would bring great leadership to our country and turn things around for us.
Then I heard these words, "Cliff, do you remember the last campaign? Remember how you said that if John McCain would really want to win and bring Democrats together with Republicans that he should select Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential running mate?"
My response was, "Yes...and...?
"Well, did you once think that people wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman because of his Jewish faith?"
"No, not at all..."
And then it hit me. I was a religious bigot, plain and simple. I had let my passion for truth as a Christian get in the way of my thinking clearly and objectively about the issues. I was being truly intolerant against the beliefs of others, which is the very definition of bigotry. Seriously! Look it up!
I still have major problems with Mormon theology and what they believe about Jesus, Joseph Smith and a whole host of other things, but I know and have known many Mormons who are good people and true Americans and patriots.
So here it is, my confession of public repentance. I was wrong about what I said about Mormon candidates for office, and I humbly confess that I should have never even thought like that as a Conservative, a Republican, and an American, and especially as a Christian. I believe in an America with a big tent that includes all people, regardless of religion, race, or ideological bent.
I have been looking at the lives of the two men running for the Office of the President of The United States this year and I am convinced that the man who better lives a life that looks like that of Christ from the outside is Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian, but has ignored and even snubbed people of faith, or tried to use them for his own political reasonings, quoting from the Scriptures to either shame them or mock them. I believe a true man of faith would not do this.
Ultimately, we all stand before God on our own. He will be the best Judge of whether we were a true believer or not. But at least now I can look my God in the eye and say back to Him, "You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom(Psalm 51:6). May He give us all wisdom this year and all those after.
This is a good response to Romney's "Faith In America" speech by commentator and fellow Mormon Glenn Beck, back in his CNN days. He makes the one point that we should all hear: if you had a problem with Romney's religion but you didn't have a problem with, say, Joe Lieberman's religion, what's the difference? I for one, was one of those in 2008 who thought McCain should have chosen Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential choice. And at no point did I think that his being a Jewish believer disqualified him to fill the office of Vice President, or President for that matter.
Wayne Grudem believes evangelicals should promote religious liberty by being willing to vote for candidates who have different beliefs.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam [ posted 12/07/2007 ]
After presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave his highly anticipated speech addressing his Mormon faith Thursday, it only strengthened theologian Wayne Grudem's October endorsement. Grudem, a research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary, said that the speech was an excellent outline on many ideas relating to freedom of religion and the role of religion in politics. Grudem spoke with Christianity Today about the speech and how others have reacted to his endorsement.
How have other evangelicals responded to your endorsement of Mitt Romney?
Many have said quietly, 'I think you're right, and I agree with you.' Many have said, 'We'll wait and see.' Many have decided to endorse another candidate. I've gotten a few emails from unknown people who just want to argue with specific tenets of Mormonism, and I haven't even answered those because it doesn't seem to me to be relevant. It's surprising to me how many people say, 'I think you're right.' Now others are supporting other candidates, and I'm glad that we have a wide, open primary season.
What do you think the highlights were from the speech?
I thought it was excellent in several ways. If anything, my endorsement of him is even stronger if anything after reading that speech. I thought he rightly outlined ways religious beliefs should and should not be a legitimate question regarding suitability for public office. He said that his Mormon faith gave him moral principles that were common to many Americans, which were important in the whole history of America.
But he also said that he thought questions about different doctrines of his or anybody else's faith were out of bounds, they are inappropriate for someone to ask someone as a candidate for president because that's not relevant for his suitability for office. I thought that was a good distinction.
I think he was also right in describing radical Islamic religion as probably the single greatest threat to America. That's the other extreme of religion trying to use force to impose what he called a theocratic tyranny. That kind of movement would inflict boundless suffering if given the chance. He is going to stand firmly against that. I'm glad for that.
I was very thankful to see his courage in saying that he wouldn't back down or jettison his personal religious faith just for political convenience. It was important to him, and if people reject him then so be it—that took courage.
I thought he was courageous also to say that the state-sponsored religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. He saw the danger of state religion and talked about the empty cathedrals in Europe.
How much should a candidates' faith be taken into consideration?
In America today, the political reality is that no conservative will be elected to the president, without the support of evangelical Christians. If evangelical Christians won't support any non-evangelical, it functions as a religious test for office that the constitution says should not happen.
If as evangelicals we are going to support the principles on which our nation was founded, then we need to defend the principles of religious liberty. That means that non-evangelicals are not only full citizens but eligible for office as well. I would hate to see us come to the point where we would essentially be saying non-evangelicals are welcome to be citizens but we will never ever allow them to become president.
I strongly disagree with Mormonism as a religious system. I think it's inconsistent with teachings of the Bible in a number of ways, but that's not the question in this campaign. The question is who is the most qualified candidate. I think Romney is better qualified—more than anyone else with his Harvard business, Harvard law degree, experience as governor of Massachusetts, experience as head of the Salt Lake City Olympic committee, one of the most successful businessmen in the United States. He's incredibly bright and competent, and I think he stands for the principles that Americans should support.
Anyway, I was very happy with the speech. It made me proud of a country in which a candidate could speak so clearly and openly about the way that religion should and should not influence the political response.
- This is a re-tread article from December, 2007. But I thought it was a strong stand to take from one of my favorite theologians, Wayne Grudem. - Cliff of the Triangle
Watch this speech if you are curious about Romney's views on religion in the public arena, religious freedom, and his own view of faith. Below is the text of the speech if you prefer to just read it. It was delivered back in 2007, but is still a good standard for dialogue on these topics.
December 6, 2007
The following is a transcript (as prepared for delivery) of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's speech "Faith in America," delivered Thursday at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. Romney discussed his views on religious liberty, religious tolerance and how faith would inform his presidency. The speech begins with Romney addressing former President George H.W. Bush, who introduced the former governor.
Romney: Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the first lady, and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution - and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God - we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired . so grand . so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation.
In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine author of liberty. And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed with freedom's holy light.
God bless this great land, the United States of America.
Alveda C. King is among the growing number of African-American leaders speaking out about President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Specifically, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. is joining black spiritual leaders in decrying the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP’s, move to give a nod to gay marriage in the United States.
The NAACP released a resolution on May 19 supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights group’s board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law.
In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act and, most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution’s to prohibit same sex marriage.
“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.
“Neither my great-grandfather, an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King Sr., an NAACP leader, my father Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda,” says King, founder of King for America and Pastoral Associate for Priests for Life.
“In the 21st century, the anti-traditional marriage community is in league with the anti-life community, and together with the NAACP and other sympathizers, they are seeking a world where homosexual marriage and abortion will supposedly set the captives free.”
Day Gardner, founder of the National Black Prolife Union, agrees. As she sees it, many black people are realizing just how far off the mark the NAACP is with regard to the real issues and the most important problems facing the black community. The NAACP organization, he says, was founded by blacks who had an understanding and strong faith in God. They were people—pastors and congregations who knew that the Bible—which is God's final word—was indeed very clear on the immorality and wages of homosexuality and abortion.
“It is appalling that this one time super hero 'civil rights' organization supports the breakdown of traditional marriage and the ruthless killing of our unborn children—as a civil right," Gardner says. “In its decision to please the world, the NAACP has turned its back on the things of God, therefore, we must encourage those who know the truth to speak out—to stand firmly on the solid rock—to not look to the right or to the left. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.'”
Stephen Broden, pastor of Fair Park Bible Fellowship in Dallas, notes that the black community is suffering from soaring unemployment, an extraordinarily high rate of abortions, a high-school drop-out rate among black teenagers that is breathtaking, an exploding rate of single parent households and the decimation of black families.
Yet, Broden says, the NAACP is making statements about same-sex marriage. “The NAACP has proven again to be an irrelevant organization as it relates to issues of survival for the black community,” says Broden who co-authored Life at All Costs with King and Gardner. The book addresses issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
Clenard Childress, founder of Blackgenocide.org, points out that the homosexual community is demanding that their lifestyle be legitimized and viewed by society as a lifestyle that is right. “We are subjected to the distasteful alignment of homosexuality with the 'Civil Rights Movement and with the argument that gay rights should be guaranteed under the Constitution,” he argues. “These two issues are incompatible."
And Levon Yuille, pastor of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti, Mich., and founder of The National Black Prolife Congress, says his community seems to have more churches than any other community in America, described as 'most religious,' “but by their vote support the most anti-Christian agenda in the history of this nation, including the abortion and homosexual agenda."
The issue of gay or homosexual marriage has divided the black community, with many religious leaders opposing it. In California, exit polls showed about 70 percent of blacks opposed same-sex marriage in 2008.
“As a person who values human life, I feel very troubled that the youngest of our communities are not guaranteed the opportunity to have their day in the sun,” Johnny Hunter, national director of Learn. “As I speak to churches over half the states in America and abroad, I have seen people weep as they are confronted with the horrors of this holocaust. Still, the destruction continues.”
A 5-year-old child with large dark eyes, full lips and a button nose stares out from the front page of the Washington Post Sunday edition. "Transgender at Five" declares the provocative headline. The child's hair is being cut in a close boy's cut by her father.
We learn from the article that "Tyler," who was born "Kathryn," began insisting that she was a boy at the age of 2. "'I am a boy' became a constant theme in struggles over clothing, bathing, swimming, eating, playing, breathing." The child's parents, at first uneasy and later accepting of their girl's desire to be a boy, agreed to raise her as a boy. Starting at age 4, she began to wear boys' clothes, was permitted to choose a boy's name for herself, and has been introduced to family, friends, teachers, and congregants at church as a boy.
Oh, boy.
Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that something called "gender dysphoria" -- with which Tyler was diagnosed at age 4 -- does exist. Let's further agree, again for the sake of argument, that the proper treatment of this condition is choosing to live as the other sex, with all that such a radical decision implies. Is there any reasonable way to conclude that something as drastic as attempting to change one's sexual identity can be undertaken by a 4-year-old?
"Parents who ignore or deny these problems," warns the Post, "can make life miserable for their kids, who can become depressed or suicidal, psychiatrists say." How many psychiatrists? The very most that can be said is that the practice of treating children for what is sometimes called "gender identity disorder" is highly controversial in the psychiatric world. Some psychiatrists want to change the name to "gender incongruence" to remove the word "disorder." Others, such as Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, think the whole idea of treating children for this condition is unwise. "We shouldn't be mucking around with nature," he told Fox News. "We can't assume what the outcome will be."
Apparently, hormone blockers are being prescribed more and more for children with "GID." The hormones postpone puberty indefinitely and, the Post explains, "give the kids more time to decide who they are and whether switching genders is the answer to their problems." McHugh calls giving hormone blockers to children "child abuse." Some young people are having "gender reassignment" surgery as young as age 16.
Perhaps some tiny percentage of children truly is born feeling trapped in the body of a person of the wrong sex. But it is undeniable that the vast majority of children go through stages. I recall wishing to be a boy myself when I was about 5 or 6. I didn't like frilly dresses and asked my playmates to call me "Timmy." Perhaps mine was a normal tomboy phase and maybe that's distinguishable from what Tyler is experiencing. But how can we be sure? The Post quotes Dr. Edgardo Menvielle, of Washington's Children Hospital, who has been treating "transgender kids" for a decade. About 80 percent, he says, switch back to the gender they were born into by the time they reach adulthood.
The problem with the Post's recommended approach -- which amounts to "let's accept a child's version of reality to avoid causing depression or worse"-- is that the decision of parents to indulge a child's whim on gender identity is itself irreversible. The effects of hormone blockers, the Post reassures readers, are fully reversible. Maybe. How much research can there have been on such a new practice? Would parents who hesitate to let their kids eat preservatives or nonorganic eggs consent to block the complex hormones that begin to flood kids' bodies at puberty? In any case, the decision to dress a girl in boys' clothing, cut her hair, and call her a boy -- even if reversed later -- must, absolutely must, scramble a child's psyche. Imagine the confrontation between a teenaged girl who has changed her mind and the parents who raised her as a boy. "Did you not think I was pretty enough to be a girl? Wasn't I feminine enough?" Or perhaps even more damaging, a teenaged boy demanding to know whether his father thought him lacking in masculinity as a child. It's a psychological minefield.
We have the technology to make -- or at least appear to make -- women into men and vice versa. If adults choose to do this to themselves (and can afford it), that's their business. But a child? One wonders: What other major life decisions should 4-year-olds be judged competent to make?
Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?
There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early Civil Rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.
For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.
1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?
Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.
Also, skin color cannot be hidden, whereas a person’s sexual orientation is, generally speaking, not outwardly recognizable (unless it is willfully displayed). Put another way, blacks do not have to “come out,” since their identity is self-evident, whereas gays and lesbians have to come out (or act out) for their identity to be clearly known.
2. The very real hardships endured by many gays and lesbians cannot fairly be compared with the monstrous suffering endured by African Americans. Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”
Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions, not to mention the fact that in many cities in America, even the lynching of blacks was accepted. Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?
3. Skin color is innate and immutable; sexual orientation is not. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no reputable scientific evidence that people are born gay or lesbian. Even the unabashedly pro-gay American Psychiatric Association stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” As expressed bluntly by lesbian author Camille Paglia, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”
John D’Emilio, a gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, wrote, “What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”
Also contrary to popular opinion, there are former homosexuals; there are no former blacks (despite the best efforts of the late Michael Jackson). This also underscores the fact that skin color cannot be compared to behavior, since even someone who remains same-sex attracted can modify his or her sexual behavior. A black person cannot modify his or her blackness.
Stated another way, genetics determine skin color, not behavior. Otherwise, if genetics unalterably predetermined behavior, then someone with a so-called violent gene could tell the judge, “My genes made me do it!” (For more on this important subject, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black” in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)
4. Removing the unjust laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) did not require a fundamental redefinition of marriage and family; legalizing same-sex “marriage” does. Marriage between a black person and a white person always included the two essential elements of marriage, namely a man and a woman (as opposed to just two people), and as a general rule, interracial marriage could naturally produce children and then provide those children with a mother and father. In contrast, same-sex “marriage” cannot produce children naturally and can never provide children with both a mother and father. (Another newsflash: Two dads or two moms do not equal a mom and a dad.)
Removing the laws of miscegenation simply required the removal of anti-black bigotry (since a white man could marry a Native American woman but not a black woman), whereas legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage (opening the door to polyamorists, polygamists, and advocates of incestuous “marriages,” who are already mounting their legal and social arguments) and the normalizing of homosexuality (beginning with elementary school education), among other things.
That’s why many black Americans are rightly upset with the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by gay activists.
No birthers here at the Triangle, but apparently Pres. Obama's literary agent forgot to take down that old, tired, "multi-culti" bio that was on the web from the early nineties until 2007!
God bless the guys over at Breitbart for finding this one.
P.S. - I know it's a week old, but it so hilarious! Just wanted this pic here to show people after November!
The following text is quoted from the codices found in the caves of Flintus Stonus in the hills just above ancient Holy Wood Land, a district known to be inhabited by those peoples said to have been familiar with an ancient rite involving herbs and mushrooms with the Grateful Dead playing in the background. In 1967, the period of time known by archeologists as Summeris Totalis Acidus, a time known for it's explosion of newly found discoveries of texts related to times and places of antiquity that apparently could not be seen until then through the use of new highly sophisticated technological drug therapies. Dr. Robert "Stencil" Lewis was personally on sight when his house boy/student assistant found several writings on the inside of a refuse receptacle said to have been dated from the Early Hiesenhauer period. The writing, mere fragments, were at first deemed to be merely ancient to-do lists of local artisans and shopkeepers, and in fact, that's what they were. Examples follow:
- look up Quintus Pernius, ask him what's up
- check to make sure the wine has been delivered
- check again to make sure the wine has been delivered
- pop round to Jesus' place to pick up the table and chairs
- make last payment on table and chairs
- pay tax on wine sales
- pay bribe to not have to pay tax on wine sales
- don't forget to erase this last line about bribes
Later, further investigation revealed that the texts were actually part of a larger body of various works of merely routine lists and short reports of local happenings, apparently at the request of government officials in the area interested in the legal proceedings surrounding the local wine and beer distributorships.
The mention of a character named "Jesus" led to great interest among the scholars at the time, who all thought they were at the time or had been Jesus in a past life.
As to the original place of discovery of the codices, the answer was given simply that it was part of a really bad trip, and that the “vibe could not be revisited due to seriously bad mojo.”
THE FLINTUS STONUS TEXTS
...and there seemed to be a sufficient interest there about things related to the times at hand, and things that had occurred before. Todd, son of Gregor, the WIne-bibber, was asked whether he remembered such. He said that he had vague recollections of having kind of generally been around at basically the somewhat approximate time that Jesus may have been around as well. And so he continued,
“Well, as I recall, I may have been a little bit hung over that day. The guys, I called them all "the guys", you know, because they were the guys that hung around with me and Jesus, you see. Anyway, I was up all night, me, Jesus and the guys, just shootin' the bull, when Jesus comes down from this mountain to apparently announce who would be his followers, right? Well, like I said, we were up all night, and I crashed right in some "lady's" place, if you know what I mean? So Jesus is all like, "All right, here is my list of guys!" So he calls all of them, you know, Peter, Thomas, Thad, John, etc. Right? All the way to number eleven. Then He says "Todd!" "Yo, Where's my main man Todd? Not here, huh? Oh well, Judas, I guess you'll do as a replacement. No offense, though, but Todd is still the man! So where am I at the time? Face down in Mary Magdelene's rose bushes, thorns and all, dead to the world. Like I said, I may have been a little hung over.
So the next few years are kind of a blur on account of me needing to be ahead of everywhere Jesus and the guys were going. What, you think they didn't need Road management? I did just about all the meeting setups, except the miracles, I had nothing to do with them. There's some things only Jesus can do, get it?
So anyway, you guys wanted to know about my take on that last night, right? I was late. I was coming in as Judas was leaving, and there was a real heavy vibe in the room, if you know what I mean. And so Jesus gets up and says,
"Verily, i say unto you that as a sign of newness of life, thou shalt remember me with eggs, colored variously, Made of chocolate and of various other sweet confections as you prefer, bunny rabbits either hollow or solid, although the solid are to be the more preferred. A miracle formula I will give unto you to allow you to make an egg that will not have the taste of egg, but will rather have the taste of chocolate that is white as snow! You shall call it the holy Cadbury. However, in order to show your children the futility and frustration of life, you shall hide these wonderful treats all about and force them to collect these and other senseless and useless trinkets in embarrassingly gay colored baskets. You shall force them to parade around in scratchy and uncomfortable clothes while adults take embarrassing pictures of them that they use to remind them of the pain of this day in future days, so as to prolong the agony and punishment of this most frustrating of days.”
Todd seemed to go into a daze, or was it a trance, or maybe a flashback, who knows? He seemed to be thinking of something terrible, shocking, and altogether frightful. They asked him what this was about, and he answered in a moan, "Peeps!" Peeps, peeps and more peeps! Ah, the horror of it all! The Peeps! I was there! I was there when the deal was made! He wept openly now, almost inconsolably. "For you see, there is a dark secret about Peeps. A deal was made for my very own soul that night. A deal made in sugar, corn starch, a little food coloring, and blood! Hear this, sons of men, Todd said:
"For when upon your tongue a Peep you taste,
A soul from purgatory to Hell makes haste!"
(II Obtusias 8:11 & 12)
It was his own dark secret, his deal with the Devil himself. Peeps are the souls of the damned, incased in the sweet marsh of mallows. It was either that or spend eternity In Tulsa as a Mormon Scientologist. What would you do?
(So ends the fragment of text known as the testimony of the pseudo-apostle, Todd.)
I present this each year just before Easter in the hopes that the pour souls trapped may be allowed their own safe purgatory. The suffering and pain associated with the festival of Easter must be stopped, what with the deliberate hiding of things from children, and the high levels of frustration they endure. Think of their fragile psyches, for God's sake! This is a world wide tragedy, and must be stopped! - Cliff
