Gosnell Guilty Of Murder And Manslaughter: Now What?

abortion is not health care1 Gosnell Guilty of Murder And Manslaughter: Now What?

By now, you’ve probably heard the news that late-term abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of three first-degree murder charges for killing live babies as well as involuntary manslaughter of a woman who died at his Philadelphia clinic. Eyewitnesses testified that Gosnell killed hundreds of babies born alive over the years, but physical evidence was only available to prove three of them. This is a guy that kept baby feet in jars as trophies.

Will this case lead to regulations being implemented in one of the least regulated industries in America? Gosnell is certainly not alone when it comes to seedy backroom abortion operations, unsanitary conditions, and untrained staff.

Right under our preoccupied noses and all across America, hundreds of abortion “providers” are making a killing in their completely legal, government-approved businesses. Many are just living the American dream. Yes, it’s true some take advantage of confused and scared young girls; but with the average price of an abortion being around $1,300 per customer, delivering death adds up to big profits.

Various sources confirmed that Gosnell performed thousands of abortions over a 30-year career; and his practice alone netted him about $1.8 million a year, much of it in cash. Authorities found $250,000 hidden in a bedroom when they searched his house. Gosnell also owned a beach home and several rental properties. 

Prosecuter Ed Cameron said that “He created an assembly line with no regard for these women whatsoever.” For obvious reasons, many of the youngest customers end up paying cash.

Is Gosnell the only twisted abortionist killing babies born alive? Are we so naive to think his clinic was the only one operating in such horrific conditions? 

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser insists Kermit Gosnell is not alone:

“Exploitation of women and complete disregard for their health and well-being are problems endemic to the entire abortion industry. There are numerous examples of negligence and even death in abortion facilities across the country. Now is the moment to realize that abortion is neither safe, nor rare. Abortion is a brutal, painful procedure, both for the child that it kills and the woman that it wounds.”

Gosnell’s radical pro-abortion views, similar to President Obama’s, clouded his respect for life, causing a blatant disregard for one of God’s most basic laws: Thou shalt not kill. Obama even said, “God bless Planned Parenthood” in a recent speech, fully supporting their ‘work.’ 

When abortion was legalized via Roe v. Wade in 1973, at least the court had an (extremely weak) excuse that there was some confusion over exactly when life begins. With modern technological advances such as ultrasounds, however, and the fact that science proves a human heart begins beating at six weeks, this argument holds no weight whatsoever!

And yet, abortions that are neither safe nor rare continue every minute in America under the guise of ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘women’s health.’ A baby is aborted every 26 seconds. The media does their part by withholding the gruesome details and facts about killing our own and calling it a ‘right’. They hide the truth in part to protect the Democratic Party (abortion is a money-making platform), and most of us carry on with our busy lives without batting an eye. 

Apathy has spread like a heartless disease throughout the United States. We have become desensitized to sin.

The root of this depravity is pure evil and goes against what the Bible teaches; but for the average abortion practitioner, it’s just another day at the office. Abortionists don’t care about morals. We cannot expect unbelievers to live according to godly values.

To them, the Ten Commandments are merely ten suggestions. Their consciences have been seared, and they are simply accommodating the desires of a selfish, depraved society. In today’s culture, they call it “choice.”

To Gosnell, he was just doing his job: helping young women, even underage girls, dispose of the growing lives within them at any stage of development.

To the generous taxpayers of America, we’re just helping fund the cause by generously providing Planned Parenthood with $11 every second through our tax dollars, totaling over a half a billion dollars annually. The biggest abortion business in America just eliminated two more human lives since you began this article. They perform one abortion every 94 seconds, totaling more than 335,000 abortions a year.

If you only care about money and you have no regard for God, the Bible, and life in general, it was a brilliant plan – and the devil is full of them. This dark agenda of death began with Margaret Sanger in the 1930’s and 40’s, which I expose in my book ERADICATE, in a chapter called, “Planned Parenthood’s Buried History.”

A majority of American citizens believe that abortion is wrong (and even say that there should be more restrictions placed on abortion), so what now? It’s been over 40 years since the legalization of the destruction of human life in a Mother’s womb, supposedly the safest place on earth.

What about the women who walk into abortion clinics? Some have stomachs the size of basketballs. Should they escape any scrutiny? Why don’t we hear more about those who decided to kill the precious life inside them?

The root of this tragedy is a much bigger problem; we have a hyper-sexualized, promiscuity-approving culture from Hollywood to government-run schools to the mainstream media. Sadly, some Christians are conforming.

We continue tolerating depravity in America often leading to death and vote for those who support it. We allow abortionists to play God – and most of us say nothing. If such an appalling case as Gosnell’s doesn’t cause more folks to speak up, I’m not sure what will.

Photo Credit: Planetrussell (Creative Commons)

NBA’s Jason Collins: “Gay” Superhero!

Jason Collins SC1 NBA’s Jason Collins: Gay Superhero!

So I guess you’ve heard. Fading, 34 year-old NBA free agent Jason Collins (right) has been declared a hero for publicly announcing that he digs dudes. Well, it’s about time! Used to be all a guy had to do was die at Omaha Beach or some other such nonsense. The Imperialist USA is finally seeing some major progress.

What callous soul wouldn’t be moved by this youngish man’s gallantry? Who wouldn’t shudder at his sacrifice?

Merriam-Webster’s defines courage as “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.” Think of it. Just as his middling basketball career was coming to a close and he was preparing to fade into relative obscurity – joining millions of others in the Obama unemployment lines – Jason Collins stood tall and said, “No! I will not take the easy road!”

This selfless giant of a man put everything on the line and valiantly (Optional: may or may not insert theme to “Battle Hymn of the Republic” here) – announced to the world: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.”

With everything to lose and nothing to gain, Jason Collins, in one single, selfless act, has rushed forward to jump on that “homophobic” grenade of persecution each of his LGBT brethren, sistren, and whatever-else-tren face daily. For every oppressed dude-digging-dude, chick-digging-chick, or cross-dressing whatchahoozie, Jason Collins has “taken one for the home team.”

Danger? Fear? Difficulty? One can only imagine.

Have you ever tried to fend off a herd of undulating, adulating media-types and Hollywood celebs? Me neither. Guy could get slobbered on – might even skin an elbow.

And just as he was ready to move to the next level of his basketball career (couch, Cheetos, and NBA 2K13 on his PlayStation), Jason may now have to contend with millions in product endorsements, speaking fees, and (potentially) even a renewed NBA contract. Have you ever dealt with lawyers? I have. I am a lawyer. We’re a pain in the butt.

But then it occurred to me. Collins had a girlfriend of eight years. In fact, they were engaged to be married before he dumped her. This would make him “bisexual” then, wouldn’t it? So – and bear with me here – if being “gay” makes him a hero, does being “bi” make him a superhero? That. Is. Awesome! I don’t know: “Captain Switch-Hitter”? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

Then again, if he’s “bisexual,” might that actually diminish his heroism? Would it make him only half a hero, or would it just cancel out altogether, making him ordinary again?

It’s all so confusing.

How do you get a call from the White House? Sandra Fluke? Jason Collins? I see a theme developing here. Declare sexual liberation from all that archaic “morality” stuff and – ring, ring – “Barack on line one.”

Oh, sure, a bunch of those “Christians” and conservatives are up-in-arms over the president’s “bizarre priorities” – that he would personally call Jason Collins to congratulate him over “the love that dare not speak its name,” while completely ignoring a guy like Cameron Lyle.

Who is Cameron Lyle, you ask? Well, little chance you’d know. And why should you? He’s just some attention-grabbing track and field star from the University of New Hampshire who sacrificed his athletic career to undergo the excruciating process of donating bone marrow to a total stranger dying of leukemia.

Yeah, I know. What a prima donna. They call that “heroic”? Puhleeze. Sure, like in a 1950s kinda way. We’ve evolved. We’re talking “gay pride” here. So, naturally, Collins gets the call – a little “one-on-one” if you will – while Lyle gets the shaft.

And all is well in the “progressive” time-space continuum.

But, lest you worry about Jason Collins’ incredible act of courage going otherwise unlauded by this president and his mainstream media, I shall hasten to comfort you. For Mr. Obama also heaped spoonfuls of sparkly-sweet sugar upon Jason’s hate-tattered brow at a frenzied news conference. CBS News describes it thusly: “President Obama told reporters he ‘couldn’t be prouder’ of NBA player Jason Collins, who one day earlier announced he was gay. Mr. Obama said Collins is ‘a role model’ to be able to say, ‘I’m still 7-foot-tall and can bang with Shaq, and deliver a hard foul.’”

Um, right, exactly. If we can’t be proud of sodomy, what can we be proud of?

Seriously, I’d encourage the next pro athlete engaged in some other hitherto-considered-deviant-sexual-lifestyle to ride the wave.

Who knows? In today’s ever-”progressive” culture, I could see President Obama awarding the Medal of Honor to the first polo player courageous enough to admit having a thing for his horse.

 

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

An Eagle Scout’s Take On The Current Boy Scout Controversy

Scouts SC An Eagle Scouts Take on the Current Boy Scout Controversy

Yesterday, Western Journalism linked to an article about the controversy over allowing openly gay boys into the Boy Scouts of America.

It looks like after relentless pressure, the Boy Scouts are caving into the homosexual agenda (which as I will explain later has nothing to do with homosexuality per se.)

This just might be the last straw for me…

First, some background. From 1998 until 2004, I was a proud member of BSA Troop 199 in Oldwick, New Jersey. I made a lot of friends and even acquired a few mentors during my time in the scouts. One of my proudest accomplishments in my 26 years was attaining the rank of Eagle Scout in October 2004. I remember the ceremony as if it was just yesterday. It was a lot of hard work, but it was more than worth it.

I am still in touch with several of my fellow Eagle Scouts (some of whom just might be reading this right now!) And man do we have a strong opinion on what is happening to the program we were privileged to be a part of during our teenage years.

I do know some “scout dads” who will cease any involvement, current or former, with the Boy Scouts should they yield to the gay lobby.

I should also mention (proudly) that I am a theologically and culturally conservative Christian who after attending a more moderate church for 15 years was saved earlier this year after attending an Independent Baptist church for two weeks. I am proud to call Sun Valley Baptist Church in Anthem, Arizona my new home church.

The reason why I am specific in terms of what kind of Christian I am is because sadly, a LOT of Christianity has been watered down in America. Whole denominations are indifferent to traditional marriage, “social justice,” the increasing usurpation of our God-given liberties under multiple recent administrations, and even abortion.

When it comes to marriage, I subscribe strictly to its biblical definition. (To some people, that makes me a “bigot,” an accusation I will proudly wear with a badge of honor.) Why, you may ask? Because God did not create Adam and Steve, nor Alice and Eve. He created Adam and Eve. End of story.

I believe that Christians are to hate sin while at the same time loving the sinner. It is not gays themselves I am opposed to. It is the gay lifestyle, which is shamelessly promoted on television, Hollywood, the rest of the media, and the Democratic Party (this should not suggest that I am any fan of the Republican Party, FYI.) It is specifically promoted as a “normal” lifestyle, which just simply is not true to the many of us Christians who read the Bible for ourselves.

It is not the job of Christians to call them names (i.e. “perverts”, “queers”, or worse.) Unfortunately, some Christians will distract fellow church-goers from the fact that they are sinners by just demonizing gays (or immigrants or Muslims) all the time. These Christians should know better as we are all sinners, whether we like it or not.

The so-called “homosexual agenda” is not about homosexuality. It is not about “equality.” It is about gaining special privileges that straight people do not have (i.e. “hate crime” laws.) What they will end up doing, whether they realize it or not, is direct more animosity towards gays. (And Christians who hate sin yet love sinners at the same time are accused of hating gays?!)

I know of many gays, especially some of my fellow libertarians, who refuse to let their sexual orientation define them. This is a wonderful thing in and of itself. (And did you hear about the gay tea party activist who opposed “marriage equality”?)

If the Boy Scouts do indeed lift this gay ban, they will join the media and Hollywood in saying that “it’s okay to be gay.” Of course, that flies right in the face of the laws of God. I challenge any liberal reading this to show me Biblical truth to the contrary.

And I don’t have any time for such organizations, especially now that I know I am going to Heaven. Nor will my children, should God choose to bless me with them at some point down the road.

It’s not that I am afraid of gays per se. I have a few gay friends and even a gay relative whom I love dearly and pray for. And if one of them invited me to their “wedding ceremony” should he/she decide to get “married”, I would not turn them down (although I know they are committing a sinful act and will be praying for them ASAP after the “festivities” are over with.) It’s just that the gay lifestyle goes against God’s word. That’s the deal breaker for me.

As a libertarian (a very misunderstood term, but that’s for another time) AND a Christian, I believe that one of the best gifts God gave us was the gift of free will (which even includes the freedom to refuse to acknowledge there is a God.) Of course, there are consequences for using this gift the wrong way. But such is the Christian life.

And if gays wanted to start their own program similar to the Boy Scouts in nature, I think they should be more than free to do so, assuming parents of prospective members are comfortable with such a program. But the Boy Scouts has every right to discriminate in this way as they are a private organization.

In fact, I would argue that in a truly free society, it should be the right of ANY business or organization to discriminate based on (dare I say it) race, religion, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation, among pretty much any other basis.

Now I am no racist or bigot, and I would likely refuse myself to patronize any restaurant or business that did discriminate in such a way. But the freedom to discriminate like this should exist nonetheless. Discrimination is a two-way street, after all. Black restaurant owners could refuse to serve KKK members. And gays should be free to not serve anyone they deem is homophobic.

I don’t know about you, but I’ll be watching this story like an Eagle…

 

Photo credit: Preston Kemp (Creative Commons)

 

 

 

 

The Company You Keep

 

Bill Ayers The Company You Keep

There is a new Robert Redford movie out called “The Company You Keep.” For old people like me, it reminds me of the lessons taught in our youth. We were taught that you will be judged by the company you keep. For me, that phrase “the company you keep” was conveyed forcefully, especially by my Grandmother, the guiding influence on my life till her death.

For her, and many like her, it was imperative to surround yourself with people who would enrich your standing in the community. Your word, given over a handshake, was suppose to be stronger than any contract. To her, the only encumbrance upon that theory was your reputation, and your reputation was greatly impacted for the good or for the bad dependent upon The Company You Keep. Your previous conduct, added to those you were known to associate with and by your previous record of keeping your word, summed up how the small town I lived in saw you as a person. Thankfully, in my small town USA, your family background, while it played a part in how others perceived you, was limited as so many of us were economically regarded as poor but happy.

It seems to me that this ethic has lost most of its impact upon those who are now in the administration. In part, I suppose, this is part and parcel of growing up in what is now considered flyover country, a portion of the country whose opinion matters very little to those from the power centers such as Washington, LA, New York, and (lest we forget) Chicago. We must remember that the President matured in his political standing, surrounded and influenced by those leaders of the enlightened few in Chicago.

Perhaps we should again look at those enlightened few who have so influenced our “Great Leader” to find how this may have impacted his thoughts and actions since his arrival in the most powerful position in the world. What were their aims and motivations? What does history say about their reputations? And how should he be viewed in light of The Company He Keeps?

Bill Ayers, about whom there has been much comment but very little context, has admitted that he hosted Obama’s political coming-out party. Ayers is also a self-described revolutionary and an unrepentant terrorist. His only regret, according to his own lips, is they did not do enough bombing and other direct action. He was part of the Weather Underground Movement, around which the movie “The Company You Keep” is based. Part fiction and part fact, the movie conveniently leaves out their close ties to the Black Panthers Party and their group’s declaration of war against the United States. Bill Ayers was a founding member and leader of this group along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn. They were but two of the members who split from the Students For A Democratic Society, the original group founded upon the principles of bringing about a revolution in the USA and creating a communist society out of the ashes.

One of the many things I found interesting when I read the wiki on the Weather Underground was that after the signing of the Peace accord in Paris, France ending the Vietnam War, the radical elements of the “New Left” fell apart. Did they fall apart or just change course? Did they realize that the method of bombing and trying to incite “The Workers” to begin a revolutionary movement would not work? Did they believe that waiting until they had found their “Golden Boy” (no racial inference intended) would enable the revolution through political means? Is this sort of the reverse of the old phrase “War is just Politics though other means”? In other words, are they conducting war through political means? After all, did Bill Ayers and the remains of the Weather Underground, including his wife, ever declare peace after their declaration of war?

While this article is not meant to be a movie review, it is meant to help those of you younger than some of us to help connect the dots. I, like Bill Ayers (who is a little older than I am); Eric Holder (who is about 3 weeks younger than I am); and many who are Obama’s close friends, allies, and staff, lived through the 60′s and 70′s as a young impressionable adult. There is no excuse for not knowing; it is even rumored that Holder in some ways participated in some events.

There is one final thing to point out. If you look up the movie on imdb.com, you will find that it is listed as 2012. In Hollywood, that means it was completed in 2012. I find it odd it was not released until 2013. (Just a small detail to consider when 2012 was an election year, with all that entails.)

Photo credit: lloyd89 (Creative Commons)

The Left Would Hate Jackie Robinson Today…

Jackie Robinson SC The Left Would Hate Jackie Robinson Today...

Democrats don’t ever tell the truth about their shared history with African Americans. They will never admit that the Confederacy was formed by Democrats intent on keeping their ancestors locked on plantations as slaves. They will never admit that the Klu Klux Klan was formed and populated by Democrats who had been members of the Confederate Army.  They have lied about which Party was home to some of the worst bigots in American history.

Black conservative writer K. Carl Smith summed these lies up with: “When I grew up in Alabama, I thought George Wallace was a Republican. I thought Bull Connor was a Republican. I believed the people that bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., were part of the Republican Party…..  all of the things I believed to be true I found it was a lie.”

Last Friday, the new movie “42” referring to Jackie Robinson’s uniform number was released. It is apparently a stirring tale of how a black American named Jack Roosevelt Robinson, who had the skill and courage necessary to pull it off, broke the color barrier and played baseball for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

What is certain is that the Hollywood version of the Jackie Robinson story will not tell us about his life as a Republican activist after baseball. It will not touch on the strongly-held  Republican beliefs of Branch Rickey, the man who signed Robinson to play baseball for the  Dodgers, ironically played by leading Hollywood liberal Harrison Ford.  Nor will it mention that it was not until in 1959,  twelve years after Robinson was first at bat, that Boston (a bastion of phony liberalism) became the very last city to put a black man (Pumpsie Green) on its baseball field.

Jackie Robinson’s post-baseball years are just another story about black people the Democrats and their lap dog media ignore because it doesn’t fit the tapestry of lies they need their plantation hands to hear and believe.

The Democrats want the “truth” to be: “Yes Robinson had these wired un-politically correct conservative thoughts, but in 1960 when he saw Richard Nixon refuse to campaign in Harlem he was cleansed of them.” Nevertheless, Robinson’s autobiography strongly suggests otherwise. He was impressed with the enormous sums of money that white Republican Nelson Rockefeller’s family had given to support black colleges (Spellman College, which is today a leading anti-Republican nest, was founded by John D. Rockefeller and named for his mother.) Robinson liked a certain brand of Republicanism. He was a Rockefeller Republican, but a Republican nonetheless.

In order to campaign for Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, Robinson gave up a well- paying, very secure  job as a spokesman for Chock Full O’Nuts coffee company. Yet who could deny that if Jackie Robinson was alive today he would be mocked and reviled by the creeps at MSNBC because his political beliefs would not fit the plantation field-hand mentality they demand from blacks?  Number 42 would be just another Uncle Tom to them.

To read more about the Democrats’ lies to Blacks and others over their two hundred year history go to crooksthugsandbigots.com

N.B. The hard copy is no longer in print and cannot be ordered.

Photo credit: Baseball Collection (Creative Commons)

Remembering Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher SC Remembering Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher, who served as prime minister of Britain from 1979 to 1990, is most famous for teaming up with my father Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II to peacefully end the Cold War and bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But at home, the “Iron Lady’s” intellect, political will, and love of freedom and capitalism also saved Britain from its long, slow death by socialism.

Prime Minister Thatcher freed up Britain’s economy by deregulating business, privatizing government-owned industries, and breaking the back of the powerful unions that were smothering her country to death.

Not that The New York Times can bring itself to give Lady Thatcher much credit for any of this in its coverage of her death from a stroke on Monday at age 87.

Paul Krugman, the pathetic Times’ in-house apologist for the serial failures of the Obama Economy, dug out some arcane data that he said raises doubts that Thatcher’s pro-capitalist policies actually did anything to turn around Britain’s economy.

Meanwhile, a so-called news article in the Times on Wednesday about the debate over Thatcher’s legacy in the British Parliament is the latest example of how the Paper of Record’s liberal bias is always at work.

Two Times writers — John F. Burns and Alan Cowell — said, “The Thatcher era is generally recalled as a time when a capitalist revolution crushed labor unions, decimated staid industries that had once formed the nation’s economic base, and inaugurated a period of robust economic growth that sanctified a generation’s acquisitiveness.”

No bias there, right?

I think Burns and Cowell spent more time describing what nasty things Thatcher’s left-wing critics in the Labor Party had to say about her than mentioning her triumphs.

But Lady Thatcher doesn’t need the support of The New York Times or Hollywood to make it into the history books. Her accomplishments on the world stage will speak for themselves forever.

I’ll never forget meeting Lady Thatcher several times in London and in the United States. But my greatest memory of her occurred in 2004 when, despite being very ill, she attended my father’s funeral at the Reagan Library.

The morning after the funeral, as I was eating at the hotel with my family, I greeted Lady Thatcher when she came in for breakfast.

“Oh, Michael,” she said in that great accent of hers. “Think of how much we could have accomplished if your father had been elected in 1976, not 1980.”

“Lady Thatcher,” I said with the greatest respect, “I think God chooses the time for many of the things that happen in the world. And 1976 wasn’t that time; 1980 in fact was.”

“Why would you say that?” she said.

“Simply because I look at 1976 and I say, ‘Where was Margaret Thatcher? Where was Pope John Paul II? Where was Lech Walesa and Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev?’ In 1976, none of you were in positions of power to do anything.

“But 1980 was the right time,” I said to Lady Thatcher.

“You were prime minister. Pope John Paul was pope. And you had a man in Washington, D.C., who understood freedom. Because you were all in positions of power in 1980 you were all able to work for the betterment of the world.”

“Oh, Michael,” Lady Thatcher said, “I didn’t think of that. You’re right.”

Because Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, his legacy and the legacy of Margaret Thatcher will be tied together forever — thank God. And though the “Iron Lady” and my father have both passed away, their legends — and historic accomplishments — never will.

Photo Credit: LeStudio1.com- Bernard Bujold

Divide And Conquer- Fair And Balanced

Republican Democrat SC Divide And Conquer  Fair And Balanced

This is a term used by the establishment. Language is important for progressives in order to throw off unwitting voters. As I said before, people make the mistake of only describing leftists as progressives. This is not the case.  Statists, career politicians, and the establishment all fall in the progressive category.

In order for there to be fairness, or balance, you need to have  two opposing sides. When you have only two opposing viewpoints in the mainstream, it nearly divides the voter base evenly. The evidence is proven in the last few elections. The establishment on both sides share power. It doesn’t matter to them who is really in power, as long as it’s the state.

Imagine if a large majority of citizens were unified in putting in place a President who respects the Constitution. Imagine a President who doesn’t use the media, Hollywood, news networks, education, healthcare, race, religion, sex, diet, culture, and our thoughts to keep us divided.

If more people woke up to realize the true shape this republic is in, we could actually still have a chance to use the voting booths to change our course before it’s too late. If we stay “fair and balanced,” not even what’s left of our 2nd Amendment rights could save us.

Time to vote for politicians who believe in term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and our Constitutional rights. Time to stop voting for politicians who pass laws that only benefit their voting base over the rest of the nation. We don’t need laws to define social issues. We don’t need laws to protect us from ourselves. We don’t need a government that mandates us to purchase their services. Is that so much to want? It’s sorta how government is supposed to operate anyhow… so lets try doing things the right way now and see where it gets us.

 

Liberty By Logic

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Dr Carson Should Deliver The Commencement At Johns Hopkins

Ben Carson 2 SC 300x199 Dr Carson Should Deliver the Commencement at Johns Hopkins

Photo credit: Unalienable Rights by GOD- not Executive Order (Creative Commons)

Some Johns Hopkins students are campaigning to have Dr. Ben Carson pulled from this year’s commencement speaker line-up. They are angry about the comments the well-known neurosurgeon, made about same sex marriage. Carson has since apologized for having offended anyone and indicated he might withdraw from the commencement role. That would be a shame. The students could certainly benefit from what this self made alumnus has to say.

Dr. Carson, who rocketed to political fame after simply and eloquently pointing out the weaknesses of President Obama’s divisive policies during the National Prayer Breakfast, which Obama attended, made the same sex marriage comments on Fox News Tuesday night. 
Host Sean Hannity asked Carson his opinion on same-sex marriage, given the Supreme Court’s consideration of two gay (same-sex) marriage cases this week. 

Carson said I believe “Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.” Now that is what he said. How can anyone disagree with the logic and truth imparted by his statement.

Since the Middle Ages the term Marriage is reserved to a man and woman joining together as a unit. The word marriage has been used since Ancient Rome to describe the union of man and woman. It has always referred to the mutual consent of a man and a woman to wed (form a union). The term marriage is synonymous with another word wedlock which was also used in the Middle Ages in conjunction with Matrimony.

The Miriam Webster Dictionary defines the word marriage as a union of 2 people of the opposite sex. It does not say 3 people or 2 people of the same sex. It specifically says 2 people of the opposite sex. The only recognized source that even mentions the possibility of same-sex marriage is “Psychology Today”, a magazine. So where is Dr Carson wrong. He is not wrong, but the students have been indoctrinated to believe that homosexual activity is a good life style and is widely accepted. Today is a snapshot in history. Gay acceptance is being driven by the homosexual lobby and money in Washington DC. That is why Obama and other Liberal Progressives have evolved to accept same-sex marriage.

The Liberal oriented Health and Human Rights Student Group on Campus began circulating a petition, linked out of its Facebook page, challenging Dr. Carson’s selection as the 2013 commencement speaker for the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. That is the fallacy of the social media. Comments, opinions devoid of fact are foisted on the internet as fact. These students accused Carson of effectively comparing “gay relationships with pedophilia and bestiality.” Of course that is their slanted view. However, in many ways Dr. Carson is right. The students can’t see the forest for the trees because they have been taught to think that way by Liberal Progressive Professors who grew their teeth in the ’70′s. If same-sex is accepted, then why can’t you have bestiality, S&M, Incestuous, polygamy and any other combination of human beings. Once you open the barn door, all the animals can enter.

I bet If you asked any one of these students when the term “Gay” was coined to describe the homosexual life style they probably couldn’t tell you. Up until the 1980′s the “Gay” community as we know it today, did not exist. The word gay is defined as carefree and was used widely to describe life in the 1890′s, better known as the “Gay Nineties”. It was also used by Hollywood which had its own problems in the 1930′s. If someone cross-dressed in a comedic fashion they were referred to as gay. It wasn’t until after the Aids virus was introduced around 1986 that the term “Gay” was used as a term to describe someone who engaged in same-sex relationships. The Aids virus was described as being a homosexually transmitted disease. After heterosexual men were infected by blood transfusions, blood banks were not allowed to accept blood donated by homosexuals or someone who had sex with one or prostitutes. That practice is still in place today.

In the words of the students, “At the time of his nomination, Dr. Carson was known to most of us as a world-class neurosurgeon and passionate advocate for education. Many of us had read his books and looked up to him as a role model in our careers,” the group said. “Since then, however, several public events have cast serious doubt on the appropriateness of having Dr. Carson speak at our graduation.” 

What changed. Nothing except that Dr Carson offended the Professors and supporters of President Obama. Dr. Carson is still the same simple, self reliant, and eloquent speaker who wowed the audience at the National Prayer Breakfast. He has so much knowledge and good advice to impart.

If the misguided students at Johns Hopkins can’t see that it is their loss, not his. Even to that end, Dr. Carson on Friday told MSNBC it’s “their day and the last thing I would want to do is rain on their parade.” As for Dr. Carson, he has already been elevated by so many in the country, even grudgingly by the people in Hollywood when Cuba Gooding Jr. played the part of Dr. Carson in a movie about his life. Carson was hailed by conservatives, and even landed a speaking role at the Conservative Political Action Conference, for his remarks in February. So if he doesn’t speak at the commencement it is their loss not his.

Maryland Lawmakers Ram Through New Gun Control Legistlation

Gun Control SC Maryland Lawmakers Ram Through New Gun Control Legistlation

Oh Democrats, when will you stop being so stupid? When taking away people’s guns, do you truly believe criminals will just turn theirs in? Please tell me you’re not all as dumb as Dianne Fienstien. Please, tell me you’ve matured. Looking at the current state of things, I’ll take that as a no.

So, while Christians all around the country were celebrating the day that Jesus died for our sins, Maryland Democrats rammed through new Gun Control. Now, this new round of Gun Control is quite interesting if you ask me. If you live in MD, and your gun is stolen from your house, and the criminal who has it does something with it, and the Police get hold of it, you get the blame. Not the criminal, you: the citizen who had his/her privacy violated by the criminal. Recently have your AR-15 stolen at your house outside of Annapolis? Well, you’d better pray that criminal doesn’t go on a shooting spree, or he’ll be taking you with him to the slammer.

Are you not yet convinced that Democrats don’t care about your liberties and freedoms? Then here’s a video via Breitbart where their correspondents recently talked to Delegate Mike Smigiel (R-MD) on his own Amendment to try and change the blame for the use of a stolen firearm.

N0w lets reflect on that, shall we. The Amendment passed, then (with some string pulling and bullying) 2 Democrats were converted to the other side, opposing the amendment to blame the criminal instead of the firearm’s real owner. It’s a sad day when the people sent to State and National capitals do a 180 on the things they “promised” to do during the campaigns. But they’ll be supported by the Mainstream Media fully. They’ll be supported by Hollywood. They’ll be supported by other big leftists; and the people they work for in the end will just be pushed aside.

Now, after heading to the Delegates’ website and browsing around, I noticed one commenter, who seemed quite angry with this new round of Gun Control.

March 27, 2013 at 10:03 am

Here is some common sense. How about have a person that knows what a Firearm is and what it’s function is write legislation. I find it quite ridiculous that a person who has never worked a day in his life is writing ridiculous legislation, to impose on The Law Abiding Citizen’s of Maryland. I’d like to see someone put forth an amendment that charges any Delegate or Senator with Treason if they vote in favor of SB 281.

There is truth in this post. Many politicians these days are career politicians. Many also have never fired or even held any firearm of any kind. It’d explain why a California official once said you could be shot by an unloaded weapon (crazy, right?). This post shows the anger held by the people who actually care about their freedoms and wish that the government would stop trying to take them away. These are the people who are abused by government overstep. People have had it with these oversteps, which is why the Tea Party gained lots of momentum.

Let me remind you all that Gun Control only affects the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. The criminal will never follow the laws. That’s why they’re criminals. They don’t obey laws. Why Democrats expect them to with Gun Control is beyond my knowledge. All I shall simply say is that they really should be let down with the compliance from the criminal community. Maybe one day the little light bulb in their head will turn on, and they’ll get it; but until then, everyone’s gun rights shall be infringed on (even though the 2nd Amendment says they “shall not be infringed.”)

Photo credit: krazydad / jbum (Creative Commons)

The Agenda Behind LGBT “Anti-discrimination” Laws

Gay Marriage 300x197 The Agenda Behind LGBT Anti discrimination Laws

Usually when a new statute or ordinance is created at the state or local level, it’s in response to a problem that needs correction. Such is not the case with the “anti-discrimination” ordinances being considered by several states and municipalities across the nation. As such, they are agenda-driven ordinances which solve nothing, but by the law of unintended consequences, can open a veritable Pandora’s box of legal and social problems.

These ordinances seek “to prohibit discriminatory acts in housing, employment and public accommodations based upon sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.”

Proponents of such ordinances and statutes claim they will “guarantee the safety for everyone living in the community.” There are, in fact, many state, federal and local laws on the books that seek to ensure residents’ safety; none can guarantee it, as evidenced by the police logs which are rife with infractions against the safety of others. Much like so-called “hate crime” laws, these ordinance single out a specific classification of people, granting them extraordinary legal protection beyond that afforded all other citizens.

There is no valid statistical information cataloguing discrimination based on sexual orientation, to my knowledge. All information currently available is anecdotal, at best.

In the absence of empirically verifiable data, we must look for an alternative motive behind the proponents of such laws. We need look no further than the plethora of websites advancing the radical LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda.

The agenda is well defined by their own advocates. Jeff Levi proudly proclaims, “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right to see government and society affirm our lives.” That they seek public affirmation speaks volumes about how they view themselves and their lifestyle.

Gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined a six-point plan in their book After the Ball, referred to by activists as “a gay manifesto,” which laid out the agenda for how the beliefs and attitudes of ordinary Americans could be transformed to affirm the lifestyle. As they stated, “The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.” They described how the movement should use “propagandistic advertising to depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals] as being discriminated against, hated and shunned.”

Recent polls indicate a growing level of acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle. These data provide empirical evidence which invalidates the movement’s premise; that they’re discriminated against by public opinion. But the problem is in the agenda of those who promote the lifestyle, and seek extraordinary protection, and redefinition and alteration of fundamental social conventions and institutions to affirm the lifestyle of 3% of the population.

Alan Sears and Craig Osten in their book The Homosexual Agenda, identified the four stages that the movement has gone through to reshape the issue. It’s now in the fourth stage of legitimization where, with the full backing of the American Psychiatric Association, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and the education establishment, and even local school districts, the issue has been taken from a treatable psychological disorder to normal, if not preferred, lifestyle in less than 40 years.

Most of the movement’s success can be linked to reshaping the argument from a moral and logical debate to one of “human rights.” As such, all who question the movement and the practice are labeled as “homophobic,” “hateful,” or “intolerant” toward those who are merely “different.” And they do so with all the acrimony, animus, and vitriol they can muster and get away with in print and the airwaves.

Society has been reprogrammed to assume they’re victims, even with all the laws on the books preventing discrimination and assuring Equal Opportunity Employment protections. With the passage of “hate crime” legislation, they now have super protection where opponents can and are literally deprived of their freedom of speech for expressing opposition to their agenda. In England and Canada, ministers have been arrested for referring to it as a moral issue. Following our current course, the same will undoubtedly occur here in the not-too distant future.

There is a sharp distinction that needs to be drawn between acceptance of those of different persuasions, and acceptance of the militant, extremist tactics of the movement advancing their cause. Conflating the two is illogical and fallacious.

And this is not a “civil rights” issue like racial discrimination, because it is completely self-defined, based on inclinations and behavior. All one has to do to qualify for protection under this ordinance is claim to be homosexual or transgendered. Civil rights issues cannot logically be based upon what one merely claims themselves to be, without creating inequality under the law.

George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” That is precisely what we are witnessing now, as those who accept and promote normalcy, the orientation which perpetuates the species and forms the anthropological and biological foundation of our culture and civilization, are publicly excoriated for having the temerity to publicly express it.

These “anti-discrimination” laws and ordinances have no needful basis in reality, and should be rejected. We openly and compassionately accept each other regardless of orientation. What we don’t accept is the radical agenda implemented to promote it.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.