Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

From Laugh Riot Comedy to Trump Hatefest: The Return of “Will and Grace”. They Should Have Left Us Laughing.

September 30, 2017

W_71814

Will and Grace, was a “groundbreaking” (according to Hollywood Liberals) sitcom which aired on NBC from 1998-2006.

The series centered around Will, a gay lawyer and Grace, a straight interior designer. They both lived in New York. Grace was engaged to a absolute jerk,. When they broke up, she moves in with Will, who happens to be her best friend. It was only supposed to be until Grace found herself a place of her own, but she and Will wound up with each other as permanent roommates. Also featured in the ensemble were Jack, Will’s flamboyant gay friend and Karen, Grace’s secretary/assistant who didn’t really need to work because she married money several times.

As seems to be the pattern nowadays, due to a lack of good writers out in Hollyweird, “Will and Grace” has returned to NBC’s Thursday Night Lineup.

Judging from the first episode, they should have stayed gone.

FoxNews.com reports that

The premiere episode of NBC’s reincarnated “Will & Grace” was essentially a 30-minute anti-Trump infomercial on Thursday night and conservatives have taken notice.

The first episode of “Will & Grace” in 11 years referred to First Lady Melania Trump as a “hostage,” portrayed Midwesterners as people who didn’t eat vegetables until Michelle Obama  came along and featured Debra Messing’s character, Grace, complaining about the results of last year’s presidential election.

Grace has somehow landed a job redecorating the Oval Office because Trump “has been pouting that his office is a real dump.”

After a subtle jab that Melania wouldn’t hire anyone for the job who is pretty enough to attract the president, Grace and her assistant headed to the White House, where the show mocked Kellyanne Conway’s infamous couch photo and President Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease.

Grace is told Trump wants his the Oval Office “to look like he’s there from time to time,” another obvious shot.

People magazine even published a list of all the times the show ripped Trump.

The premiere episode did well in the ratings department, with 10.2 million viewers tuning in, making it the most-watched scripted show on television Thursday night. The Wrap’s Senior TV Reporter Tony Maglio believes future ratings could depend on viewers who side with the show politically.

“Post-premiere, ‘Will & Grace’ ratings should come back down to Earth, and will soon settle into a pretty predictable range. The return was an event [that] had the nostalgia factor going for it, plenty of promotion and generally favorable reviews,” Maglio told Fox News. ”The show does have a few things working against it though: The younger half of the advertiser-coveted 18-49 demographic don’t know or care at all about these characters, and a series that takes such a political stance is, by its very nature, divisive.”

Fox News’ Senior Vice President of Marketing and entertainment contributor Michael Tammero was “very excited” for the return of “Will & Grace” but didn’t stick with the episode for the entire 30 minutes.

“It was a very important show, as someone who is gay and married… it was a show that initially played a huge role in changing hearts and minds in this country and advancing LGBTQ issues,” Tammero said. “I expected some anti-Republican, anti-Trump lines, but I did not expect every single line to be some sort of jab.”

Tammero said the show “is on broadcast for a reason, ‘broad’ being they key word,” as networks typically try to to reach the largest possible audience. He can’t predict if the show’s political views will hurt viewership.

“I think it could… I think it will probably hurt the show,” he said. “In Hollywood, we’re seeing a lot of people center-right are turning off and tuning out.”

Conservatives viewers took to Twitter to react, with many noting that they wouldn’t tune in again because they were offended by the show’s politics. One viewer asked, “Why alienate a large part of America?”

Another viewer tweeted that “Will & Grace” used to be a good show but is now simply a “tool for hate,” and dubbed it “Will & Disgrace.”

The Media Research Center’s TV reporter Amelia Hamilton blasted the episode, calling the storyline “a lazy way to take shots at the president for the entire length of the show” and said it was embarrassing.

“Hollywood still hasn’t realized that shows like this do nothing but help Donald Trump,” Hamilton wrote. “When will Hollywood learn that they’re basically running his reelection campaign by doing this?”

Ironically, “Will & Grace” creators David Kohan and Max Mutchnick told The Hollywood Reporter they only agreed to a reunion because former NBC Entertainment president Jeff Zucker isn’t involved anymore, since he is now the president of the liberal network CNN Worldwide.

“Zucker was the only reason we had a problem at NBC,” Mutchnick said. 

More than likely, Zucker was the reason that you never saw 30-minute hatefests during the series’ original run, like the before-mentioned episode.

Those in power in Hollywood, like the rest of Liberal America’s “Smartest People in the Room”, seem to be under the misguided notion that the majority of Americans think precisely like them, meaning that we all are as dedicated to hating the 45th President of the United States of America as Captain Queeq (Humphrey Bogart in “The Caine Mutiny”) was in his search for the missing strawberries.

I don’t know if their unrequited anguish over the events of November 8, 2016 has eroded their memories, or just plain sent them over the edge of sanity. However, they seem to remain oblivious of the fact that 30 states voted for Donald J. Trump on that fateful night.

During the original run of “Will and Grace”, average Americans watched the program because it was funny, plain and simple. They overlooked the less than stellar living arrangement of the title couple for that very reason.

While Liberals viewed the series as groundbreaking because of the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality, average Americans tuned in because the characters were a “hoot”.

I am sure that Jeff Zucker recognized that and probably fought behind the scenes to keep the show politically neutral in order to maximize the potential viewing audience.

The producers, it now appears, could care less about what the viewers want. Like the oblivious NFL Players, the producers of “Will and Grace” have decided to use their entertainment platform as a political launching pad for diatribes against the American President and those of us who voted for him.

While, like Hillary Clinton herself, vitriol and insults hurled incessantly at the President for 30 minutes may enthrall the “culturally hip” audiences on the East and Left Coasts, here in the Heartland, a television program so weak that it relies on 30 minutes of that to “entertain” their audience will have Americans turned off faster than Rosie O’Donnell in a thong bikini.

This current revival of “Will and Grace” has only been scheduled for 10 episodes.

That’s a wise move. However, judging from the premiere episode the new “Will and Grace” may not even last 2.

And, that would be a blessing.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Advertisements

Christian American Kim Davis is Jailed. What’s Next? A Date With Lions in the Nearest Coliseum?

September 3, 2015

th1DXO5NI310Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.…- Ephesians 6:10-12

Yesterday, something happened that,  at one time,  I never thought I would see in the United States of America.

A Christian was arrested for standing on principle and the Word of God.

The New York Times reported that

ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

Five of the six deputies told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.

Ms. Davis had argued that the Supreme Court order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples infringed upon her religious beliefs and liberties. But after a hearing, Judge Bunning said that “her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” and ordered Ms. Davis to jail.

Mike Huckabee, currently campaigning for the Republican Party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, who happens to be an ordained Minister, made a very cogent point on Facebook, yesterday…

I spoke with Kim Davis this morning to offer my prayers and support. I let her know how proud I am of her for not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty. She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington.

Kim is asking the perfect question: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?” That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what’s right they often pay a price, but if they don’t and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man – and certainly no unelected lawyer – has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American’s most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution – religious liberty.

I stand with Kim Davis and every American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith and the Constitution.

Another Republican running for that party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, Senator Ted Cruz, put it this way…

Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.

On the Facebook Political Pages which I frequent, this has been a very hot topic for discussion.

Liberals and Moderates, but I repeat myself, all believe that Mrs. Davis must step down or resign.

My question is, why are her rights less important than the rights of this gay couple who, purposefully, with cameras following them, pressed this issue, knowing full well that Mrs Davis is a Christian Woman?

Are Christian Americans’ rights, as over 70% of the population, now less worthy than homosexual rights, who only comprise 2% of our population?

As Senator Cruz pointed out, aren’t the Liberals calling for her incarceration and resignation, being very selective in the laws which they wish to persecute and prosecute somebody over?

And, why are these gay couples not also challenging American Muslims?

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton recently stated that religion would have to “change” in order to allow the American Genocide known as Abortion.

Today’s American Liberals, from Barack Hussein Obama on down to the Internet Troll, sitting at his computer in his Mom’s Basement, munching Cheetos, want Christians, like myself, to “change” our view on homosexuality, in order to proclaim Adam and Steve as husband and…err…husband.

What they do not understand, nor wish to, is the fact that man did not label it as deviant behavior and a “sin”.

GOD DID.

His Word, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, with the Holy Bible, states that fact, over and over again.

Christianity is not something that can be boxed in, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon on Sundays, as the President and the rest of the Gay Mafia seem to want it to be.

Nor can it be changed and modified to fit a culture which is currently embracing relative morality and situational ethics.

God’s Word, as is its Author, is eternal and unchanging.

And, no Supreme Court full of Activist Judges can do anything about it.

It’s above their pay grade.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Biggest Sponsor About to Stop Funding the Boy Scouts

July 29, 2015

thARHHQBA5First, the Boy Scouts of America Organization removed God from their oath.

Now, they are about to pay a heavy price for their latest excursion into Liberal Social Experimentation.

The Christian Post reports that

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has said it will be re-evaluating its long-standing participation in the Boy Scouts of America, following the latter’s decision to end its blanket ban on openly gay adult leaders.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with scouting will need to be examined,” the Mormon church said on Monday.

“The Church has always welcomed all boys to its scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America.”

The BSA executive committee voted to end its historic ban on openly gay adult leaders earlier in July, a decision that was ratified by the National Executive Board on Monday in a 45-12 vote.

“For far too long, this issue has divided and distracted us,” said the BSA’s president, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “Now it’s time to unite behind our shared belief in the extraordinary power of scouting to be a force for good.

While ending the blanket ban, BSA has said that church-sponsored troops will be allowed to set their own policies on adult leaders. The Boy Scouts leadership said in a memo earlier this month that it “rejects any interference with or condemnation of the diverse beliefs of chartering organizations on matters of marriage, family, and sexuality.”

Some Evangelicals, such as Southern Evangelical Seminary President Dr. Richard Land, have backed the policy that allows for religious exemptions, but said that other concerns remain for children in scouting.

“If you put them in the compromising situations that you are sometimes in with Scout leaders and Scouts, in terms of camping and other situations, it could lead to great tragedy for children,” said Land, who is also the executive editor of The Christian Post. “It’s best to avoid the temptation.”

CBS News noted that the decision remains a controversial one, and the Mormon church, which sponsors more Scout units that any other organization, could look at forming its own organization to replace the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts have experiences a membership decline in recent decades, while the ongoing debate over the participation of gay members and leaders has stirred the formation of other youth groups based on upholding conservative values.

Trail Life USA is one such group, which formed after the BSA decision to allow gay youth members in 2013, and now claims a membership of more than 25,000 youths and adults. 

The Boy Scouts are over one hundred years old. On January 24, 1908, the Boy Scouts movement began in England with the publication of the first installment of Robert Baden-Powell’s Scouting for Boys. Baden-Powell was already well known by English boys, and thousands of them quickly bought up the handbook. By the end of April, the serialization of Scouting for Boys was completed, and a lot of impromptu Boy Scout troops had sprung up across Britain.

Baden-Powell became a national hero in Britain in 1910, for his 217-day defense of Mafeking in the South African War. Soon after, Aids to Scouting, a military field manual he had written for British soldiers in 1899, caught on with a younger audience. English boys really took to the lessons on tracking and observation and organized elaborate games using the book. Upon hearing about this, Baden-Powell decided to write a nonmilitary field manual for British youth that would also emphasize the importance of morality and good deeds.

First, though, he decided to try out some of his ideas on an actual group of boys. On July 25, 1907, he took a diverse group of 21 adolescents to Brownsea Island in Dorsetshire where they set up camp. With the aid of other instructors, he taught the boys about camping, observation, deduction, woodcraft, boating, lifesaving, patriotism, and chivalry. Many of these lessons were learned through inventive games that were very popular with the boys. The first Boy Scouts meeting was a huge success.

American Scouting began with an event that happened in London in 1909. Chicago publisher William Boyce become lost in the fog and a Boy Scout came to his aid. After guiding Boyce to his destination, the boy refused a tip, and explained to Boyce that, as a Boy Scout, he would not accept payment for doing a good deed. The gesture inspired Boyce to start several regional U.S. youth organizations, specifically the Woodcraft Indians and the Sons of Daniel Boone, into the Boy Scouts of America. Incorporated on February 8, 1910, the movement soon spread throughout the country.

In 1916, Baden-Powell began the Wolf Cubs, which caught on as the Cub Scouts in the United States, for boys under the age of 11. Four years later, the first international Boy Scout Jamboree was held in London, and Baden-Powell was acclaimed Chief Scout of the world. He died in 1941.

Since then, scouting has produced a lot of good men, rooted in faith and trained to be leaders.

I remember it like it was yesterday yesterday, I was in Seventh Grade, and we were living in an area of Memphis, behind the Veterans’ Cemetery, affectionately known as “Nutbush”. I was a sickly undersized asthmatic kid, who was always getting picked on in the neighborhood. Anyway, my buddy Bobby and his older brother Ronnie were Boy Scouts in a troop, which their Dad, a mechanic, was the Scout Leader of. They asked me to join up, so I did. It was a lot of fun, and I “set the record” for making Tenderfoot, by learning all the knots and stuff in two days.

Unfortunately though, my severe asthma kept me from going out on the camping trips, so I had to drop out of the Boy Scouts.

That being said, I believe what irritates me the most about this whole situation, is them turning an organization with Christian roots, into a Liberal Social Engineering Experiment, just as they have our Armed Forces.

Being a Boy Scout shouldn’t be about discovering your sexual preference, it should be about learning self-reliance, love of God and Country, and how to be a leader of men.

On my honor I will do my best 
To do my duty to God and my country 
and to obey the Scout Law; 
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, 
mentally awake, and morally straight.

This latest decision by the BSA blows their oath all to Hades, doesn’t it?

It is also, going to cost them their biggest financial backer.

I suppose I could make a point about “legalizing sin”, and America’s churches’ reaction to it, but, hey…

It’s self-evident.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

“Gay Marriage”, Christian Americans, and Liberal Intolerance

July 2, 2015

philrobertsoncartoon9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)

A remarkable thing has been happening since last FRiday’s Supreme Court Ruling “legalizing” “Gay Marriage.

Christian Americans, from State Attorney Generals to City Court Clerks, have been refusing to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexual couples.

Their Explanation?

They refuse to violate their Christian Faith, and to go against God.

Were Liberals, including the ones on the Supreme Court, who changed the definition of “marriage”, evidently thought that Christians would sublimate God’s Law for Man’s Law.

Evidently, they overestimated themselves.

I first heard Voddie (pronounced “Voadie”) Baucham speak at a Youth-led Sunday Morning Service at the church I was attending. My step-son, who was in the 9th or 10th grade at the time, had been in a weekend-long youth seminar, which Voddie had led.

He came home from the seminar, all excited, telling me that I had to hear this Black Evangelist, that I would really like him.

He was right.

My step-son went on to not only play football and participate in the Weight Lifting Team at his high school (6’1′, 280), he also sang in the school choir and, most importantly, he was the President of the Fellowship of Christian Students and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He is now 27 years old, in seminary, and is helping to “plant” a church.

He has made me very proud.

But, I digress…

Voddie was a dynamic speaker, who told the youth of our church that Sunday Morning, that with God “nothing is impossible”.

Today, Voddie is the Pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas.

On the website, “desiringGod.org”, I found the following article…

Likely you’ve heard the claim “gay is the new black.” It’s been repeated over and over in recent years to equate the plight of blacks in America during the Civil Rights era with the new plight of homosexuals today.

While there are overlapping similarities between the two movements, sexual orientation and ethnicity are fundamentally different. Ethnicity is innate and unchangeable in a way that “sexual orientation” is not. Even if someone can be “born gay,” the gospel saves sinners and has the power to change evil desires.

Both movements value constituencies, or preferred minority groups, in order to gain power. Therefore, many Americans see themselves as part of a group instead of one whole. Constituencies preserve the “us against them” mentality and further divide America. This mentality has crept into the church and works against gospel unity.

In this four-minute video, Voddie Baucham explains the similarities between the Civil Rights and so-called Gay Rights Movement, while highlighting the significant differences between ethnicity and sexual orientation. The following is a lightly edited transcript…

“What is the difference between the Civil Rights Movement and the so-called Gay Rights Movement of today? Not a whole lot. Unfortunately, I think there are some things that we accepted philosophically in the Civil Rights Movement that were not based in biblical truth. And those things are being applied in the Gay Rights Movement the exact same way and now we are calling them out.

For example, the idea of seeing people as constituencies and seeing rights as rights for constituencies of people is prominent in both movements. This continued division based on our constituencies and so-called communities is problematic. We’ve embraced a hyphenated understanding of ourselves as opposed to a view that sees us as one people.

The homosexual community is latching onto some of those very concepts. These concepts, by the way, are rooted and grounded in cultural Marxism. That was the goal of Gramscian Marxism. Divide people up into constituencies, and then the way you gain power is by making promises and representing particular constituencies. Now you never give them what you promise, but by creating this idea of constituencies and being the one who is the representative of the constituencies, you gain power and you keep your power to the degree that things don’t get better for your constituency. If things get better for your constituency, you lose your power.

So even when gains are made, you have to downplay those and go looking for other things that are problems. That is the way you keep your power.

The homosexual community has latched onto that approach and has identified itself as a constituency deserving of our attention and pity. They did so intentionally using the AIDS crisis. The direct result is they now have achieved a one-to-one correlation that we are finding it very hard to move away from.

So are there differences between ethnicity and so-called sexual orientation? Absolutely there are. Ethnicity is innate and unchangeable. So-called sexual orientation is not innate and is changeable. We know this. First Corinthians 6 is two-thousand-year-old evidence that people can stop being gay. So we know that it is neither innate, nor is it unchangeable. There are huge differences between the two. However, if all you are doing is using the language of the culture and the idea of people as constituencies, then you end up right where we are, and it is hard to stop that train.”

BOOM.

I believe the position that America finds itself in, with an all-out push to minimize the voice of Christian Americans in our nation, is a result of a lack of moral guidance from generations before. The Bible tells us to lead children in the ways in which they should go. As humans, we are fallen creatures, who often do not do the right thing. Being good parents is one of those things which God requires of us.

Now, I’m not saying that homosexuality is the result of failed parenting. As most of you are aware, homosexuality can have several causes. In college, when I took the class, “The Sociology of Deviant Behavior”, back in the late seventies, the professors at that time theorized that homosexuality was caused by any number of social and psychological causes. Whether it be a dominant mother, an effeminate father, or some sort of deep shock to the system when the individual is young, they theorized that homosexuality could come from a myriad of experiences in each individual’s life.

The only thing that I can say for certain is that it is not a biological predisposition.

Why do I say that?

The reason for my comment, is the fact that scientists have tried to identify a gene or some genetic marker that causes homosexuality. And, as of today , in 2015, they have been stymied in their attempts to find a biological cause for homosexuality.

In recent years. Liberals have pushed homosexuality as normal sexual behavior. They have featured it on television shows, in movies, books, and encouraged mass demonstrations of it, in public, if you will, as the late Professional Wrestler, Dusty Rhodes, used to say.

However, try as they may, using Democrat-heavy push polls and a Liberal-Majority Supreme Court, who decided to “legislate”, instead of being judicious,  the majority of Americans remain against Gay Marriage, as demonstrated in the last few years by popular vote, and the reaction out here in Realityville, to Friday’s Ruling, “legalizing” Gay Marriage.

In confrontations with homosexuals,, concerning their behavior, our opposition to their sexual lifestyle, as Christians, is based on Christian concern and compassion for their very souls.

However, what gets in the way of Christians’ efforts to reach out to homosexuals, is the fact that God gave us all free will.

And yes, if you are homosexual and reading this, it is your right as an American and as a human being to exercise the free will which the Lord gave you, when he made you. However, do not expect him to approve of your sin, or expect me as a Christian American, to give you free license to engage in your sexual sin.

Because, you see, God gave me free will as well, and being American born, I have the Constitutional Right to speak my mind…in the street, behind a pulpit, or in the voting booth.

I don’t hate you. As an acquaintance or if  you area family member, I love you. I will pray for you. I will work with you. I will invite you inside my home. I will be your friend.

However, I will, out of Christian Love, tell you straight to your face that what you are engaging in, is wrong.

The bottom line, from a Christian’s Point-of-View, is the fact that confronting the sinner is not an act of hatred, it’s an act of Christian Concern.

If you are an American Liberal, one of the 23 percent of our population who believe that political ideology, do not attempt to tell me that my ideas about traditional marriage and about what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, are wrong.

Someone possessing a higher pay grade than you, is Whom I listen to.

And, He left me a guide to make sure that I get it right.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Gay Marriage and American Christianity: Intended Consequences

June 28, 2015

American Christianity 2Friday, President Barack Hussein Obama did a Victory Lap around the Rose Garden, in celebration of the 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, legalizing “Gay Marriage”.

Here is the speech, courtesy of whitehouse.gov:

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal.  The project of each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times — a never-ending quest to ensure those words ring true for every single American.  
 
Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens.  And then sometimes, there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.  
    
This morning, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality.  In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law.  That all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love. This decision will end the patchwork system we currently have.  It will end the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples face from not knowing whether their marriage, legitimate in the eyes of one state, will remain if they decide to move [to] or even visit another.  This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land.

In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.  It is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision.  

This ruling is a victory for Jim Obergefell and the other plaintiffs in the case.  It’s a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights.  It’s a victory for their children, whose families will now be recognized as equal to any other.  It’s a victory for the allies and friends and supporters who spent years, even decades, working and praying for change to come.

And this ruling is a victory for America.  This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts:  When all Americans are treated as equal we are all more free.  

My administration has been guided by that idea.  It’s why we stopped defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and why we were pleased when the Court finally struck down a central provision of that discriminatory law.  It’s why we ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  From extending full marital benefits to federal employees and their spouses, to expanding hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, we’ve made real progress in advancing equality for LGBT Americans in ways that were unimaginable not too long ago.  

I know change for many of our LGBT brothers and sisters must have seemed so slow for so long.  But compared to so many other issues, America’s shift has been so quick.  I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs.  All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.  

But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. Shifts in hearts and minds is possible.  And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them.  Because for all our differences, we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone.  That’s always been our story. 

We are big and vast and diverse; a nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love, America is a place where you can write your own destiny.
We are a people who believe that every single child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

There’s so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to every American.  But today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we’ve made our union a little more perfect.  

That’s the consequence of a decision from the Supreme Court, but, more importantly, it is a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up, who came out, who talked to parents — parents who loved their children no matter what.  Folks who were willing to endure bullying and taunts, and stayed strong, and came to believe in themselves and who they were, and slowly made an entire country realize that love is love.

What an extraordinary achievement.  What a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things.  What a reminder of what Bobby Kennedy once said about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still lake, and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world.  

Those countless, often anonymous heroes — they deserve our thanks.  They should be very proud.  America should be very proud.  

Thank you.  (Applause.)

Guess what, Scooter. We’re not. 

Recently, a Gallup Poll showed that a little less than 3/4 of Americans proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior and half of Americans attend Religious Services on a regular basis.

The Christian Post reported a couple of weeks ago, that Ronnie Floyd, President of the Southern Baptist Convention and Pastor of Cross Church in Arkansas, spoke during AVANCE 2015 at the Greater Columbus Convention Center in Ohio, June 14, 2015.

Referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry or whether state bans against same-sex marriage can remain in place, Floyd took a firm stance in his religious conviction that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman.

“We do not need to redefine what God himself has defined already,” he said.

Floyd explained to the audience that they will be asked to approve a resolution that affirms Southern Baptist beliefs on marriage. The resolution also reminds Christians to love our neighbors and extend respect to all people, even those who disagree with them.

“While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attractions, we cannot and will not affirm any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage,” said Floyd. “Our first commitment is to God and nothing else and no one else. I humbly remind everyone today the Supreme Court of the United States is not the final authority, nor is the culture itself, but the Bible is God’s final authority about marriage and on this book we stand.”

In his final comment on same-sex marriage, Floyd took an oath to never sanct
ify gay marriage.

“I declare to everyone today as a minister of the Gospel, I will not officiate over any same-sex unions or same-sex marriage ceremonies, I completely refuse,” said the pastor.

While the five wannabe “legislators” on the Supreme Court of the United States of America” “promised” that their decision would not interfere with the Religious Freedom which our Constitution guarantees us as Americans, we, as practical people, must also realize that, if an inanimate Confederate Flag can be vilified and removed as “Hate Speech”, so can a Pastor’s Sermon be censored by a Federal Government, who has left behind the “Faith of Our Fathers”, to worship at the Altar of Political Correctness.

Not only that, but like a Christian Baker, a Christian Pastor can be sued for “not providing services”, i.e., performing a “Gay Marriage”.

While Modern American Liberals, under the rights granted to us by our Constitution, have every right to speak their mind, blackmail and intimidation of the Majority, is not a guaranteed right.

Our nation may be witnessing the Hand of God being taken off of us.

…since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. – Romans 1:28

 Without being anchored on the Solid Rock, America would have been a failed experiment, assigned to the dustbin of history, years ago.

That still, small voice which resides within each one of us, has led Americans to do great things, in service to their country and the concept of American Freedom, as personified by Lady Liberty, standing so majestically in New York Harbor.

God gave us this nation, ensconced in the concept of “Liberty and Justice for all”.

By His Grace, we will keep it.

Without it, we will surely find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Will Christians Face Prison For Being “Intolerant”?

May 17, 2015

WashingtonPrayingCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Is the Religious Freedom of the 74% of Americans (per gallup.com)., who proclaim Jesus Christ as our Personal Savior doomed to be sacrificed on the altar of Politically-motivated “Tolerance”?

The Christian Post reports that

Religious freedom champion and former Congressman Frank Wolf warned a Harvard audience that freedom of conscience is endangered in the United States and conservative Christians may have to engage in civil disobedience because their views are considered intolerant.

“When tolerance is demanded, when orthodox Christianity is deemed intolerant and when government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path,” he said.

His main point was that freedom of conscience has long been understood as important for religious freedom, but recently there has been a trend of violating the conscience protections of conservative Christians, particularly over the issues of abortion and marriage.

Citing a resolution passed by the Continental Congress to protect the conscience rights of pacifists, Wolf argued, “our conscience is not ultimately allegiant to the state, but to something, and for many people, Someone, higher.” And this is important “because if our conscience belongs to the state, the state can choose to violate it or compromise it at will.”

Recently, however, there has been a “subtle but insidious trend” in which the government is expanding into areas that are more likely to infringe upon conscience rights. This trend was “at the heart” of the recent Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, and the Obama administration’s birth control mandate. While the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, are pro-life, the Obama administration sought to require them to pay for health insurance coverage for contraceptive pills that could cause an abortion.

Citing a Yuval Levin article, Wolf argued “we are witnessing the imposition of a new state religion” called “progressive liberalism.”

Wolf also pointed to opposition to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts as part of the trend.

In particular, he pointed out the inconsistency of corporation leaders, such as Apple CEO Tim Cook, who opposed RFRA, a law to protect conscience rights, while exercising their own conscience rights. Apple removed from its products an app by the pro-life and pro-marriage group The Manhattan Declaration. Plus, Cook opposed Indiana’s RFRA over supposed “fairness” toward gays while doing business with Arab countries where homosexuality is illegal, and China, a nation that “has one of the worst overall human rights records.”

“Freedom of conscience is good for all,” he said. “If Apple and other companies want to protect their own rights, they ought also to protect those of others. If they wish to run their companies according to their conviction, they ought not deny other companies the same right.”

Wolf’s third example of religious conscience infringement was the trend of Christian groups on college campuses being forced to choose between leaving or remaining faithful to their beliefs.

“These legal realities and emerging policy norms, coupled with fears of compromised livelihoods and tarnished reputations, risk driving people of faith out of the public square,” he said.

Wolf hopes, though, that in the face of these religious freedom infringements, Christians will not “retreat form the public square” but “boldly stay, regardless of the cost.” He then recalled the “rich Christian tradition of civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws” exemplified by Dr. Martin Luther King.

After recalling the many biblical figures who were jailed for remaining faithful to God, and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was imprisoned and put to death for opposing Hitler, Wolf asked, “Is prison the fate of people today who dare to stand up for what their conscience, informed by their faith, dictates?”

Wolf ended by quoting the Manhattan Declaration’s implied promise of civil disobedience in the face of religious conscience violations: “Iwill fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will I render to Caesar what is God’s.”

Wolf is currently Distinguished Senior Fellow at the21st Century Wilberforce Initiative and Wilson Chair of Religious Freedom at Baylor University, a religious freedom advocacy organization he joined after retiring from Congress.

While in Congress, Wolf was one of the most outspoken defenders of global religious freedom. He authored the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and the post of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom within the State Department. The act also allowed for sanctions to be placed on nations that infringe upon its citizens’ religious freedom.

Recently, I have been involved in numerous “discussions” on Political Facebook Pages, concerning this issue.

Due to my adherence to my Traditional Christian American Faith, I have recently been called everything BUT a “Child of God”, by those whose “personal belief system” leads them to bow at the Progressive-built altar of Politically-correct Intolerance.

They argue that Christian American Small Business Owners have no right to practice their faith in their businesses and that Christian American Conservatives, as a whole, MUST accept homosexual “marriage” or we are not Christians at all.

Wrong. To state it bluntly, as Dr. Michael Brown did recently, in an article for The Christian Post:

…every law dealing with marriage and family, every positive example and precept, every illustration in the Bible about sexuality morality is based on heterosexual relationships (see, for example, Genesis 2:24; Exodus 20:12; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

That’s why there was not a need to condemn homosexual practice on every page. Everything in Scripture was against it. (To be perfectly clear, the Bible plainly teaches that God loves every human being, that all of us are fallen and in need of redemption, and that Jesus died for heterosexual and homosexual alike. The issue here is the meaning of marriage and the standard of sexual morality.)

Our Christianity as Americans does not and can not end at Noon on Sunday, as we shake the Preacher’s hand and walk out of the sanctuary.

As every Christian knows, the Triune God dwells within each of us, in the form of that “still, small voice”, the Holy Spirit.

Christians have to make a choice in these tough times.

The choice we each have to make is whether to “give to Caesar” that which is not his, our Christian Faith, or to listen to that “still, small voice” and love the homosexual enough to lead them to forgiveness of their sins and salvation through the Grace of Jesus Christ.

This is not a “Political Crisis” which we as Christian Americas are facing right now.

It is a battle of “Princes and Principalities”.

And, I stand with the King of Kings.

Y’see, I have read the back of The Book.

The Good Guys win.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Faith-Based Institutions Will Be Affected By Possible Favorable Gay Marriage Ruling

April 29, 2015

th1DXO5NI3Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

You have seen me write, time and time again, that it is funny how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least of all.

The “Gay Mafia” is a prime example.

As with any liberal, as long as you believe what they believe, you’re one of the smartest people in the room. However, as soon as you cross them, and stand up for your own Christian Heritage of Faith, you are labeled a stupid “Christianist” and/or an inbred hillbilly.

Additionally, when the voters of a state get together to express their opposition to homosexual marriage through their right to vote, the Gay Mafia finds a sympathetic judge to rule that marriage is a “Civil Right”, instead of a Holy Sacrament…a bond between a man and a woman, ordained by God.

The problem that Christians and Conservatives alike face is the fact that being Pro-homosexual marriage is the “cool” thing to be now.

Even if it is at the expense of the First Amendment.

ChristianPost.com reports that

WASHINGTON — The lead attorney representing the Obama administration admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that if the court were to rule in favor of making same-sex marriage a constitutional right, it would create a religious liberty “issue” for faith-based schools and institutions, who could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt statuses.

As the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments regarding whether the 14th Amendment requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tried to dodge a question from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked him whether or not religious schools which have married housing would be required to provide housing to same-­sex married couples.

The solicitor general, which is the third highest ranking official in the Justice Department and is appointed to speak on behalf of the Obama administration in court cases, provided a winded answer to Roberts about how it is the states that are responsible for setting their civil laws.

Roberts continued prodding Verrilli by saying that even though states set their laws, the federal government has “enforcement power,” which Verrilli admitted was true but reasoned that there is no federal law “now” that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Justice Samuel Alito followed up and asked a pointed question regarding whether religious schools could have their tax-exempt status revoked for not providing same-sex couples with housing. Alito referenced the 1983 Bob Jones University Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Internal Revenue Service could revoke the school’s tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate interracial married couples with housing.

“So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?” Alito asked.

It was clear that Verrilli did not want to answer that question but offered an offhand remark assuring that a ruling in favor of gay marriage would create some issues.

“You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli stated. “I ­­ I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation panel on Wednesday, which discussed Tuesday’s oral arguments, Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, explained that Verrilli’s answer indicates that the Obama administration is looking to “preserve the ability to remove tax-exempt status from institutions, like religious universities.”

“What this exchange shows is that the administration wants to leave the door wide open to do [removing tax-exempt statuses],” Severino told The Christian Post after the panel. “Not that they could really be bound, necessarily, by the statements here but the solicitor general does not want to, even in furtherance of winning this case, because him saying ‘Don’t worry, that won’t happen,’ that would actually help him in this case. Even though that would help his case, he said, ‘I am not going to say that. We are not going to go there.'”

“Frankly his answer to Chief Justice Roberts a minute earlier more or less admitted that the federal government could say this case could force a religious college to open its married housing to a married same-sex couple if they were married under laws of the state,” Severino added.

Severino also explained that such a ruling in favor of constitutional gay marriage would create a “head-on collision” with religious expression.

“That ought to give a lot of people cause to say that this is an absolute head-on collision potentially with religious liberty because the arguments that are being made on the other side are so extreme here,” Severino stated.

Severino reasoned that if such a ruling could cause tax-exempt status issues for Christian universities and schools, it could also present religious freedom conflict for faith-based charities and other organizations also.

“There isn’t any reason to say that it clearly wouldn’t extend to charitable organizations, potentially even to removing tax-exempt status from a house of worship, which is a slightly different argument but I can see people trying to make that argument,” Severino asserted. “Taking the tax-exempt status thing would be a gigantic step and a very serious blow to a lot of institutions, all sorts of charitable institutions that are run by religious organizations from Salvation Army on down.”

“Just imagine if all of those groups were not tax-exempt anymore and what impact that would have on their ability to serve the poor the way they are attempting to do and live out their faith,” she continued.

Severino expects that the potential for conflict with religious liberty will somehow weigh into the case’s outcome even if the court decides to constitutionalize gay marriage.

“Those potential collisions were brought out and will affect the way the justices decide this case because I think that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is not going to want to have that kind of collision with religious liberty, and any of the justices ought to be concerned with the potential of further limiting the religious liberty at this point,” she said. “Perhaps, even if it doesn’t mean that is going to affect the outcome entirely, it may affect the way that the opinion is written in a way to have less of a risk to steamroll religious freedom.”

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton recently stated that religion would have to “change” in order to allow the American Genocide known as Abortion.

Today’s American Liberals, from Barack Hussein Obama on down to the Internet Troll, sitting at his computer in his Mom’s Basement, munching Cheetos, want Christians, like myself, to “change” our view on homosexuality, in order to proclaim Adam and Steve as husband and…err…husband.

What they do not understand, nor wish to, is the fact that man did not label it as deviant behavior and a “sin”.

GOD DID.

His Word, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, with the Holy Bible, states that fact, over and over again.

Christianity is not something that can be boxed in, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon on Sundays, as the President and the rest of the Gay Mafia seem to want it to be.

Nor can it be changed and modified to fit a culture which is currently embracing relative morality and situational ethics.

God’s Word, as is its Author, is eternal and unchanging.

The Supreme Court Justices must understand that, by undermining the Faith of Our Fathers, they are undermining the Solid Rock from which sprang forth the principles upon which our country was founded.

The future of America is in their hands.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – President George Washington’s First Inaugural Address,  April 30, 1789    

Until He Comes,

KJ

America Vs. the Far Left: A War Against Fascism

April 26, 2015

white-house-youth-corpsI have written. time and time again, about the Culture War, which is taking place in America.

Boys and Girls, it is not just a “Culture War”. We are battling a war against Government-sponsored FASCISM.

TheHill.com reports that

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Saturday said Democrats had gone to extremes in their persecution of Christians.

“Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party,” he said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Waukee, Iowa.

“There is a liberal fascism that is going after Christian believers,” the 2016 GOP presidential candidate continued.

“It is heartbreaking,” Cruz argued. “But it is so extreme, it is waking people up.”

Cruz said same-sex marriage had produced rabid zealotry in Democratic ranks. This ideology, he argued, was excluding people of faith.

“Today’s Democratic Party has become so radicalized for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states that there is no longer any room for religious liberty,” he said.

The Texas lawmaker said this stance was against America’s traditional values. Religious liberty, Cruz claimed, was one of the nation’s founding principles.

“We were founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution,” Cruz declared.

“We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was built,” he concluded.

Cruz, a long-time opponent of same-sex marriage, seemingly softened his tone on gay rights earlier this week.

The White House hopeful reportedly said Monday evening he would still accept one of his daughters if they became a lesbian.
 
The Texas lawmaker was the first official entrant into the 2016 election cycle.

He so far will face Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) for their party’s nomination.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II,  now known as D-Day.

World War II was in a war against Fascism.

What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, and judicial activism.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

By now, there’s some out there in the audience saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court kicks the can down the road.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said the following,

You know as well as I do that people are scared to death to tell you what they really think. The left has politicized everything — everything — to the point that people are afraid to go against what they know to be political correctness, which is nothing more than liberal fascism, nothing more than censorship.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill on through the latest changes to Obamacare by Executive Order, every single piece of legislation has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Remember when Obama was campaigning so hard to get the Affordable Health Care Act passed?

He always used people as props for his speeches, whether it was just normal people or people dressed in white coats like doctors.

When he was trying to get gun control passed, he used the parents from the Newtown Massacre in Connecticut as human props to try to get his repressive agenda passed.

The use of human props is an old propaganda trick, which was used by Joseph Goebbels to make his boss Adolf Hitler seem like a man of the people who really cared about the German citizenry.

The use of propaganda to further the aims of fascist governments is an old and effective method of camouflaging fascism, which Obama’s handlers realize all too well.

In addition to the use of human props during a speech, another strategy used in a propaganda campaign is to select an enemy and target them with the aid of a sympathetic press behind you.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

If America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1 : 22

Until He Comes,

KJ

Supreme Court Showdown: Is “Gay Marriage” a “Constitutional Right”?

April 22, 2015

 

 

gay marriageYou have seen me write, time and time again, that it is funny how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least of all.

The “Gay Mafia” is a prime example.

As with any liberal, as long as you believe what they believe, you’re one of the smartest people in the room. However, as soon as you cross them, and stand up for your own Christian Heritage of Faith, you are labeled a stupid “Christianist” and/or an inbred hillbilly.

Additionally, when the voters of a state get together to express their opposition to homosexual marriage through their right to vote, the Gay Mafia finds a sympathetic judge to rule that marriage is a “Civil Right”, instead of a Holy Sacrament…a bond between a man and a woman, ordained by God.

The problem that Christians and Conservatives alike face is the fact that being Pro-homosexual marriage is the “cool” thing to be now.

Even if it is at the expense of the First Amendment.

Speaking of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is scheduled to address this very subject next week.

The Christian Post reports that

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next Tuesday on whether states will continue to be free to define marriage for their own citizens, a number of amicus briefs have been filed arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Ryan Anderson and prominent attorney and constitutional law expert Gene Schaerr recently co-authored their own amicus brief that asserts that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to redefine marriage to allow for two individuals of the same gender to get married.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation discussion on Monday, Anderson and Schaerr, a former associate counsel to President George H.W. Bush, explained their brief in detail and offered more reasons as to why the Supreme Court should not force a decision in favor of same-sex marriage on all 50 states to uphold as law.

Anderson, who co-authored the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, explained that governments did not originally get into the “marriage business” because they wanted to be involved in their citizens’ romances. Rather, state governments got involved in marriage so that the children who were born from marriages would have the best chance of having a stable family environment to grow up in, which included both a mom and dad.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage,” Anderson asserted. “The Constitution is simply silent on whether the consent-based vision of marriage or the comprehensive vision of marriage is the true definition of marriage. It is silent on whether the states should devise their marriage policy to serve.”

Schaerr discredited a notion that a person has a constitutional right to get married to the person they love as long as they are two consenting adults.

“The bottom line is … there has never been any right to marry the person you love and so a states’ rejection of that claimed right couldn’t possibly be a denial of due process under the plain language of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Schaerr asserted. “If we turn to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the argument that same-sex marriage is based on, that clause also has holes in it.”

Schaerr also discredited a widely portrayed notion that bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory against gays and lesbians.

“Unlike the old Jim Crow laws that prohibited mix-raced marriages, the man-woman definition of marriage doesn’t offend the equal protection guarantee because it allows any otherwise qualified man and woman to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Schaerr said.

“The state man-woman marriage laws do not deny anybody the ability to marry based on their sexual orientation. There is no question on the marriage application that asks are you gay or lesbian,” Schaerr continued. “The law doesn’t care. The law just says that there are certain requirements for marriage and if you are willing to comply with those requirements, then we will give you a marriage license.”

Anderson argues that redefining marriage as a union between two consenting adults would have drastic societal consequences.

“If you redefine marriage to say that it is the union of any two consenting adults, irrespective of sexual complementarity, how will we as a community insist that fathers are essential when the laws redefine marriage to make fathers optional?” Anderson asks. “That is the challenge that faces the society that redefines marriage as consenting-adult romance and care-giving. It eliminates the public message of marriage as about uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mom and a dad.”

With unelected federal judges overturning a number of states’ gay marriage bans in the last year and many people thinking the Supreme Court could do the same a national level, Anderson said that just because the court has the power of judicial review, that does not mean the Supreme Court reigns supreme.

“I think it is important here to say that judicial review is not the same thing as judicial supremacy,” Anderson said. “The Supreme Court is not supreme. Judicial supremacy is a problem when it claims to be the only branch of government that has the obligation the defend and uphold the Constitution. All branches of government, the three federal branches and the state governments, take that oath to defend the Constitution. All branches of government are co-equal in interpreting what the Constitution means.”

Although many are confident that at least five justices will rule in favor same-sex marriage, Schaerr explained that no Supreme Court justice has ever written an opinion that held that there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married.

“In fact, there are three justices that have written or have joined opinions that clearly say there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in the Windsor case goes at least half way there,” Schaerr stated. “So as of right now, in terms of Supreme Court Justices, its three-and-a-half on our side and nobody who’s committed to recognizing a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Obama and his one-minded collective have been desperately trying to desensitize Americans, regarding the Hot Button Issue of “gay marriage”, lately.

Even though, those who practice the sexually deviant behavior of homosexuality only compose around 3% of our population, those advocating defiling of the sacrament of marriage would like us to all believe that they number many, many more. And, those who rig polls for a living would like us to believe that the majority of Americans believe it is okay for homosexuals to imitate the union of a heterosexual couple.

If that were the case, the overwhelming majority of states would not have voted against “Gay Marriage”. And, “Activist Judges” would not have had to overturn the will of the people in several of those states.

In their desperation, Liberals have even tried to rewrite God’s Word regarding Homosexuality, labeling anyone who does not agree with them, into a “Hater”.

Recently, Liberals have even become “Biblical Experts” regarding the issue, bringing up the fact that Jesus Christ hung out with people “of all kinds”.

They are correct. He did.

What they are incorrect about, is their belief that he somehow condoned their sins.

He did not.

Christ “hung out” with those people out of love , a love whose purpose was to convict them of their sins and lead them to repentance, and then, to personal salvation.

Remember John 8: 1-11?

1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]

Please notice that He did not tell her to go do whatever she felt like doing to whomever she felt like doing it to.

Sin still carries consequences.

Next week is going to be an important week in our nation’s history.

Pray for the Supreme Court Justices.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The War Against Christianity: A Question of Intolerance

April 12, 2015

 

American Christianity 2

There has been a lot of discussion the past couple of weeks, concerning the Constitutional Rights of Christian Americans versus the hypocritical use of the words “tolerance” and “discrimination” by the American Left.

Napp Nazworth, writing for The Christian Post, makes the following observation…

Businesses should not discriminate, liberals proclaimed loudly in explaining their opposition to religious freedom laws. Three recent actions supported by liberals demonstrate that is not true.

1. Bakeries Should Be Able to Refuse Bible Verses

Christian activist Bill Jack was denied service when he went to Azucar Bakery in Denver and asked for two cakes in the shape of open Bibles. He asked for the words, “God hates sin — Psalm 45:7,” “Homosexuality is a detestable sin — Leviticus 18:22,” “God loves sinners,” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us — Romans 5:8,” on each of the “pages” of the Bible cakes.

Azucar Bakery is in the same state where the bakery Masterpiece Cake was successfully sued for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

In a January interview with The Christian Post, Jack explained that he supports Azucar Bakery’s right to deny him service because they oppose the values he wanted written on the cakes. He only made the requests to find out if Colorado would be hypocritical. It was.

In Colorado, if a customer wants a cake with Christian values written on it, bakers are allowed to decline service if they disagree with those values. If a customer wants a cake for a same-sex wedding, bakers are not allowed to decline service if they disagree with same-sex marriage.

2. Pharmacists Should Refuse Death Penalty Drugs

The American Pharmacists Association approved a policy last month discouraging its members from participating in death penalty executions by providing the drugs required for lethal injections.

The move was encouraged by a letter sent to the group signed by 31 anti-death penalty and liberal organizations, including Amnesty International, the NAACP, National Council of Churches, SumOfUs and the United Methodist Church.

Liberal websites, such as The Huffington Post, Democracy Now and Think Progress, wrote positive reports about the move. There were no critics mentioned in their reports arguing that pharmacists should not have the right to decline their customers.

These reactions contrast sharply with liberal reactions to the notion that pro-life health care workers should not be forced to choose between participating in an abortion and losing their job.

3. Businesses Were Right to Boycott an Entire State Because of a Religious Freedom Law

In reaction to a religious freedom law passed in Indiana, Liberals were not only supporting, but praising Apple, Angie’s List and Salesforce for threatening boycotts in the state over the new law.

These liberals appreciated these companies making business decisions based upon their moral convictions. This exposed a glaring contradiction in their position: those companies opposed the law because it could (in some circumstances) let businesses make based upon owners’ religious convictions.

At its core, the issue was about wedding vendors, like Masterpiece Cake mentioned above, who declined service for same-sex weddings due to their religious convictions. Essentially, this means the companies were opposing a law that could (but not necessarily would) give small business owners the right to decline business for a particular event, by declining business with an entire state.

More than that, Angie’s List, Apple and Salesforce were much more extreme in their position than the wedding vendors. While wedding vendors opposed to working same-sex weddings would have no economic impact (because there are plenty of vendors willing to work same-sex weddings), boycotts by large companies would hurt local economies and workers — even those workers who agreed with their position. Yet, to hear liberals tell it, those companies were heroic while same-sex marriage opponents are bigots.

In a Thursday article for The Federalist, The Acton Institute’s Jordan Ballor put it well: “The problem in this instance, then, is not that companies like Angie’s List threaten economic sanction, …. The problem, rather, is that the freedom to discriminate is claimed by such companies for themselves but not extended and recognized for others. Boycotts against discrimination as such thus depend on the very thing they oppose. In this sense, the discriminatory actions of businesses ought to be judged alike, whether they are based on religious convictions or secular morality.”

So, what is it that American Liberals want Christian Americans to do, concerning the fact that our Holy Scriptures, God’s Word itself, condemns homosexuality?

According to Dr. Michael Brown, writing for The Christian Post, one  for the New York Times, believes that there is a simple solution to the “problem.”

Simply rewrite the Word of God.

How can the religious community live in peace and harmony with the LGBT community? New York Times columnist Frank Bruni has the solution. Just rewrite the Bible.

In his April 3rd column, “Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni, himself gay, recognizes that Christian beliefs are not necessarily grounded in hatred. The problem, he claims, is that, “Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.”

Bruni, for his part, wants to shake us free from our fossilized faith.

According to Bruni, who evidences little or no understanding of how believers view the Scriptures (namely, as God’s inspired Word), if we hold to the view that homosexual practice is sinful, this is our “decision” and “choice.”

So, ironically, whereas homosexuality was once considered a choice, now what we believe about homosexuality is a choice.

After all, he argues, the belief that homosexual practice is sinful “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

So, Bruni thinks he can simply dismiss the Scriptures as “ancient texts,” explaining “all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”

But for devout Jews and Christians, the Scriptures are not just any writings, full of biases and blind spots.

If that were the case, there would be no basis for our faith whatsoever and no absolute moral foundations of any kind.

Forget about homosexuality. We would have no reason to hold to any of the fundamentals of our faith if Bruni’s description was accurate.

Not only so, but Bruni wrongly claims that for those of us who hold to the authority of the Bible, “the advances of science and knowledge” mean “nothing.”

To the contrary, all the scientific advances in the world cannot determine what is or is not moral, and there’s nothing we know today that changes our view that God did not design men to be with men and women to be with women. The new interpretations of Scripture that the “progressive” Christians are touting (and which Bruni applauds) are not based on new textual or archeological or linguistic discoveries. They are based primarily on emotional arguments, since there is nothing in the Bible that supports homosexual practice.

Bruni also repeats the common misconception that there are just a handful of “scattered” texts that deal with homosexual practice.

To the contrary, every law dealing with marriage and family, every positive example and precept, every illustration in the Bible about sexuality morality is based on heterosexual relationships (see, for example, Genesis 2:24; Exodus 20:12; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

That’s why there was not a need to condemn homosexual practice on every page. Everything in Scripture was against it. (To be perfectly clear, the Bible plainly teaches that God loves every human being, that all of us are fallen and in need of redemption, and that Jesus died for heterosexual and homosexual alike. The issue here is the meaning of marriage and the standard of sexual morality.)

Bruni cannot countenance this for a moment. Instead, he claims that our biblically-based faith “elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance,” which is why “our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

So, those of us who hold to biblical morality are “unthinking” and “prejudiced” people who need to be “freed” from our antiquated beliefs.

It’s high time, Bruni opines, for us to catch up with the 21st century. How utterly primitive of us to believe that there’s anything wrong with homosexual relationships or acts!

Bruni, however, sees positive trends, pointing to a number of books by Christian authors who advocate a reinterpretation of the Bible, claiming that we have outgrown other biblically based views over time, like the justification of slavery or the nature of gender roles.

…Bruni cites with approval a quote from Mitchell Gold, a furniture maker and gay philanthropist who says, “church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”

And Bruni means it when he says “made to” – as in pressured to or forced to or coerced to. As he writes at the end of his column, “His [namely, Gold’s] commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them.” (Of course, Bruni misrepresents the positions of these Christian business owners as well, but why deal with truth when caricature is so much more effective?)

So, rather than follow the biblical commandments, which are explicit and unambiguous when it comes to both the heterosexual nature of marriage (“from the beginning,” as Jesus said) and the sinfulness of homosexual practice, we should follow the new “commandment” of Bruni and Gold and simply rewrite the Bible.

Well, here’s a note to Mr. Bruni and The New York Times: A billion years from now, when the names of Frank Bruni and Mitchell Gold and the Times itself are long forgotten, the words of God will still stand (Isaiah 40:7-8; Matthew 24:35), and those florists and bakers whom you ridicule in this world will be highly esteemed in the world to come.

The fact is that churches and denominations and religious groups may come and go, but the Word of God is here to stay.

We do not sit in judgment on the Scriptures; the Scriptures sit in judgment of us. And while they call us to love our neighbors as ourselves, they also forbid homosexual practice.

That is not about to change.

As I wrote earlier this week, the Far Left, have proven that they cannot stand Christian Americans. It is evident from their condescension toward us and derision of our traditional values and ethics in their propaganda. Our Constitution gives us Religious Freedom in its very First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Please note that this amendment does not say “in some circumstances”.

I have said time and time again, that I find it funny that those among us who claim to be the most tolerant are actually the least tolerant of all.

However, this attack on our faith as Christian Americans, is not funny at all.

This Media Blitz, concerning the fact that Christian Americans refuse to support “Gay Marriage”, which was the impetus behind the President’s scolding Christian Americans about “not being loving enough” is not about discrimination, it is about control. Control of American Christians’ daily lives.

It is a rewriting and an attempted negating of God’s Word by those who cannot win a political or spiritual argument and are now trying to win a culture war by claiming that this law is something that it is not, and by rewriting Christianity by leaving out Individual Salvation through repentance of sin.

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler ‘ s Minister of Propaganda, once said that

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The current lie that Obama and his sycophants are telling the American Public is that, somehow, the less than 24% of Americans who feel the same way as the Progressives in the Far Left do, somehow outnumber the 74% of Americans who proclaim Jesus Christ as our Personal Savior.

And, that overestimation just doesn’t add up.

Not even in Common Core.

Until He Comes,

KJ