Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, May 28, 2012

Catholics Prepare for Civil Disobedience

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, May 25, 2012

Dexter: How Gay Divorce Cheapens Traditional Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 21, 2012

A Principled defense of Traditional Marriage; Two Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes—20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

    "Now, one can assume that a female playing the male role in a lesbian relationship would erase this problem, if such a dynamic exists. But frankly, why would a female attempting to act masculine take the place of a real man? This assumes that the problem with being fatherless is due entirely to there being only half a couple responsible for the children. It also assumes men and women are utterly interchangeable. And yet we know for a fact that men and women, even when undertaking the same tasks, are still radically different (see here).

    It also assumes that male and female homosexual couples model male and female behavior effectively, which is crucial since young children learn much by mimicking. In fact, many experts are concerned that gay parenting will be brought in with anodyne claims of its harmlessness, and only after it becomes an institution, will we be told it is harmful but its too late to call it off. But what could possibly be done after it is legally and culturally established as a norm if it is found deleterious? For instance, in dealing with cases which came before a court, one author wrote:

    "A systematic analysis of appeals court cases or cases cited in those appeals cases regarding custody of children in which a homosexual parent was involved. Here, 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexuals’ associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant."

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

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Vindication for so-called 'birthers'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 17, 2012

An Open Letter to Rachel Held Evans‏

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 14, 2012

A day with Dr Peter Hammond

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Forces of Hatred Defeated In North Carolina


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

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

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

Monday, May 7, 2012

God is not mocked: 2 examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, May 4, 2012

Obama White House gives shout-out to Nazi sympathizer

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

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

Gertrude Stein?

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

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

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

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Obama 2012 campaign slogan 'Forward' shared by Hitler Youth, Marxists, Socialists

Filed under the category of 'Color Me Suprised' the Obama administration again takes off it's mask to reveal it's true nature, absorbing the terminology of other leftist organizations from the past...

 "Barack Obama’s latest campaign slogan “Forward!” also happens to be a Nazi marching tune. Vorwärts! Vorwärts! was a marching song of the Hitler youth."

"Mussolini was editor of the Socialist newspaper, Avanti (Forward), in April 1912. Avanti took its name from Vorwarts, the German Socialist paper. He was eventually kicked out of the party but they gave him his start because Socialism is the way Forward. L’Avanti still exists today." Link

And from the pages of the Washington Times..

"The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward") in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as "Forward, Soviet" (though also and more literally as "Stride, Soviet")."

So again we see the familiar terminology of over-arching government control morphing into a stunningly oversimplified mantra to be repeated by the mind-numbed masses that is only half as hard to remember as "Hope and Change'. Forward!  

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Southern Poverty Law Center, by it's own definition, a 'hate group'‏

That the Southern Poverty Law Center is a complete joke and has been for years is old news. Equally unastounding these days is the assertion that the organization is, by their own definition, a hate group that engages in hate speech. For the most recent example of how completely worthless their 'hate group' designation is, one need look no further than Dr Michael Brown's article from yesterday that lays bare that which Ryan Lenz and Evelyn Schaltter of the SPLC apparently cannot stand, the FACTS. While reporting on a conference that Dr Brown spoke at, the number of errors in the article criticizing the conference is so extremely high as to speed right past yellow journalism and enter directly into Intentionally Misleading Territory...

"Moving on, here are some of the most egregious errors in the report. Describing the NARTH conference itself, the article states that, “True to form, the people speaking at that conference were not therapists promising revelations about human sexuality, but rather prominent culture warriors of the religious right, like Brown [and Sharon Slater].”

This is unmitigated nonsense. As noted by my NARTH source (and as I witnessed firsthand), Slater and I were “the only two speakers who were not clinical, research, and academic experts, not to mention the keynote presentation of Dr. Nicholas Cummings, the former President of the American Psychological Association.” Broken down by the hour, “Clinical/Research/Academic presentations = 29.25 hours (21 speakers), Policy presentations = 2.75 hours (2 speakers).”

All Lenz had to do was look at the conference program to get the facts right, but who cares about facts when you’re writing biased articles designed to advance a particular agenda? Why let truth stand in the way when your goal is to discredit people by claiming they belong to the “radical right,” along with skinheads and neo-Nazis and the like?

The article claims that, according to NARTH, “homosexuality is an unnatural deviation from normal sexual development, a form of mental disorder.” Actually, my source notes that “NARTH does not use that term [a form of mental disorder] to label homosexuality.” The best the SPLC could do was cite a 15 year-old quote from a NARTH co-founder, the late Dr. Charles Socarides, but this was simply his personal opinion and is not part of NARTH’s official statements or standards.

The article quotes (and attacks) Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute without mentioning that he has nothing to do with NARTH. But why quibble?

The article then approvingly cites gay activist Wayne Besen who claims that, “There’s no other play in the playbook except going back to the fire and brimstone.” Is he kidding? A professional counselor helping a client deal with unwanted same-sex attraction equals “fire and brimstone”? And this is part of an “intelligence report”? (I know. The term is sounding more oxymoronic by the second.)" 

 So once again we see that those out there who are the quickest to play the bigot card and love to accuse others are often themselves the biggest bigots on the entire planet. The SPLC intentionally misidentifies National Socialist groups as being 'right-wing' when their ideology has nothing to do with small, limited government conservatism as espoused by Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh et al.  Meanwhile blatantly racist organizations such as La Raza and MEChA openly peddle their extreme vitriol and they can expect the SPLC won't say a peep about them (And in the case of La Raza, actually defend them).

The Wayne Besen reference was particularly amusing and the icing on the cake for this parody of a thinktank as this charlatan has been clearly shown to be an intellectual coward as well as a confirmed liar.

All that matters is that the accusation is made people. Facts apparently matter not.

EDIT: I knew that if I did a little digging, I could cite an example of how the SPLC practices apologetics for the thoroughly racist organization MEChA and of course,they do.