Posts

Caitlyn Jenner? Hello Sucker!

It doesn’t matter that Bruce Jenner, famed Olympic athlete and member of the Kardashian family, thinks that he is female. He can never be female no matter what surgery he undertakes to make it reflect the fantasy in his head. Born a male, his body is a billion cells and nerve contacts whose DNA determines his true gender.

That’s why those who are buying into the pop cultural myth and news coverage of Jenner’s announced transformation should be greeted “Hello, Sucker!” It’s worse than just plain stupidity; it is the tip of a massive effort to alter society that dates back to those arrogant and deluded founders of communism who thought that, for it to succeed, the family as a key element of all societies, had to be eliminated.

TakedownDr. Paul Kengor, Ph.D., is a leading scholar on Communism and the author, among other excellent books, of “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century” and, just out, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has sabotaged Family and Marriage.”

The only way progressives—communists—know how to advance their agenda is to lie about it in every way. Even a short look at the lives of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the authors of Communist manifesto, Das Kapital, tells you what motivated their wish to destroy the family.

As Dr. Kengor points out, Engels had written that he “favored that marriage should not be a legal relationship, but a purely private affairs” noting that Engels “revealed a highly promiscuous attitude toward sexual morality and marital relationships.” Between the two men, they had many mistresses. Of the six children Marx fathered, four died before he did and two committed suicide. Both men leached off of Engel’s inheritance, never working a day in their lives. Marx’s family finally refused to lend him a dime; in brief, two men with a disdain for traditional marriage and widely held Judeo-Christian moral values.

Therefore, to understand why we are drowning in anti-family propaganda and efforts to change the laws affecting what marriage is and is not, Dr. Kengor notes that “Even way back when, in the mid-1800s, the far left had its sights on the family, with marriage at its epicenter. And this particular component of the extreme left—the communist left—was devoutly atheistic in its orientation ambition, and mission. It rebelled against God, a rebellion against the Creator that was central to its new direction and fundamental transformation.”

“Fundamental transformation”? Where have we heard that term before? Oh yes, from President Barack Obama’s lips. This was the candidate for President who said marriage was strictly between a man and a woman before he was elected and “evolved” into supporting same-sex marriage. Hello, Sucker!

“Same-sex marriage,” says Dr. Kengor “is hardly a Marxist plot, a latent communist conspiracy. It is, however, a crucial final blow to marriage—the only blow that is enabling a formal, legal redefinition that will unravel the institution”, adding that “what the left has steadfastly said and written and done to marriage and the family over the last two centuries cannot be ignored.”

“Much of the wider American culture, outside of the far left, has also become secular and dismissive of traditional religious teaching on matters such as family and marriage…The radical left could never have achieved this ultimate takedown of marriage without the larger American public’s broad acceptance of gay marriage.” If you can believe that two men or two women can and should get married, than you will believe anything. In five thousand years of civilization, we are close to letting all of the moral and civil lessons learned in the past be ignored, forgotten or rewritten.

We have, as a society, been tending more and more in this direction, dramatically when the Supreme Court legalized abortion and, in its forthcoming decision on same-sex marriage, likely a similar acceptance. When that occurs, our society will be just decades away from a serious breakdown. As it is, more and more children are growing up in single-parent family settings, lacking as often as not, a father.

If you want to look at men dressing and acting like women, tune in America’s most famous drag queen, RuPaul’s television show. He’s male. Those on the show are male.

There are among us, men and women, whose sexual preference takes them in the direction of their own gender. They constitute 1.8% if the U.S. population. There are those who, born male, now claim to be female. That is their problem deserving of no special laws or attention. Changing our entire society and culture to benefit this slim nitch of society is a very bad idea.

Bruce Jenner’s absurd claims will make him a rich man. Not a rich woman.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

VIDEO: A Black Woman Explains Why Ferguson Rioters Are Worse Than The KKK

The below video is produced by Praeger University and featured on ConservativeVideos.com.

When whites riot, the public rightly labels them as criminals. When blacks riot, the public considers them to be protestors with legitimate grievances. Is this different standard fair? Or is it an example of a new form of racism cloaked in low expectations? Chloe Valdary, a black student at the University of New Orleans, explains.

Read more.

America, Land of Hope Amongst Elitist Hypocrites

The progressives are guilty of what they have often accused others of being. Hypocrites.

So now the elitist progressives have dubbed the support of traditional marriage between a man and a woman as bigotry equal to racism.  It is amazing how with a straight face at least publicly, the progressives actually equate marriage between a man and a woman with racism and bigotry.  Such an argument obviously borders on insanity.  But the mistake would be to laugh it off and act like it is just silly liberals with nothing better to do.

In fact, such statements are part of a massive orchestrated effort to fundamentally change every good aspect of our constitutionally limited republic.  It is the progressives who are actually the bigoted and hateful ones.  It is they who disdain God’s design for man and woman to come together in holy matrimony and raise children in a solid family unit.  One of the surest ways to maintain a strong, vibrant and blessed society is the continuation of the traditional family.  It was my own Dad who would often tell me that a nation is only as strong as it’s families.

The progressives know that to be true as well.  That is why they have burrowed their way into every sphere of influence throughout society.  They wormed their way deep into the entertainment industry, the education system, the news media, the sports industry, corporate America, the military and even mainline Christian denominations to fundamentally turn those institutions away from the more solid principles they had practiced for eons.  For example, someone in academia telling students that a natural marriage between a woman and a man who desire to be together equates to racism.

Thus, the progressives themselves are displaying their own bias against a successful way of life that has served mankind very well for dozens of centuries.  Those in opposition to the many positive institutions (such as traditional marriage) are on a deviant mission to wedge their more troubling progressive policies of destruction into our American society.  Recently, we witnessed in Indiana how big business, big media along with progressive political leaders use their significant power and influence to topple over good proven religious liberty protections.  This cultural cronyism is a coming together of those in power and influence, who like President Obama desire to fundamentally change America.

The elites are so united, that even though the same amount of amicus briefs have been file at the Supreme Court both supporting and opposing state marriage laws, not one single major law firm has filed a brief supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (That little tidbit was supplied by noted writer, Ryan T. Anderson) Most homosexual, environmental and social justice activists all have one creepy thing in common.  That is the changing of the United States of America from a Christian professing constitutionally limited republic into a Christian loathing politically left of center, where big nanny goat government is god.

I must say, that while the leftist progressives has numerous issues they promote, with homosexual marriage being the hot flavor of the month of June for them, I have a question.  If homosexual marriage is so right and meant to be, why can’t they be fruitful and multiply by just mating alone?  ‘We the People” of America must unite and stand against big government abusing and penalizing sovereign citizens who simply seek to live their lives as they legally and morally see fit.  They must not be forced to travel down the progressive road that leads to destruction.

Have you noticed that the further America is dragged away from the building block principles that made her the one time envy of the world, the more she deteriorates in every aspect, including economics, military decision making, etc.?  For those who insist on comparing a Christian photographer choosing to pass on the opportunity to film a certain type of wedding, here is a news flash!  Whether you like it or not, the Bible affirms that marriage (as God intended) has nothing at all to do with race.  But rather it has everything to do with love between a man and a woman and procreation.  From Genesis to Revelation the Bible specifically deals with husbands and wives in many circumstances.

Thus it is most important not to allow the progressive elites to fundamentally change America in order to bully and go after us Americans who simply maintain our belief in the ONE who shed his grace upon our exceptional nation.  God Bless America and May America Bless God.

Traditional Marriage: A Most Perfect Union

Opponents of traditional marriage try to equate any union as a perfect one. Two recent studies prove them wrong. The Daily Signal’s Leslie Ford reports:

“Those who marry are more satisfied than those who remain single,” claims a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

But does marriage itself influence happiness? Or is it just that happier people are more likely to wed?

This study gives support to the idea that marriage itself contributes to happiness. (In other words, even the grumps that get married may find themselves happier because they are married.) Another finding from the study is that that friendship is a mechanism that may explain the link between marriage and life satisfaction. In fact, those who see their spouse as their best friend benefit even more from marriage.

Read more.

Joe Miller in a column titled “New Research on Same-Sex Households Overwhelmingly Shows Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad” reports:

A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (U.S.) National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

[ … ]

Vocal critics, soon to emerge, will likely home in on the explanatory mechanism—the fact that two mothers or two fathers can’t possibly both enjoy a biological connection to a child—in suggesting the results of the study reveal nothing of value about same-sex households with children. On the contrary, the study reveals a great deal. Namely, there is no equivalent replacement for the enduring gift to a child that a married biological mother and father offer. It’s no guarantee of success. It’s not always possible. But the odds of emotional struggle at least double without it. Some critics might attribute the emotional health differences to the realities of “adoption by strangers,” but the vast majority of same-sex couples in the NHIS exhibited one parent with a biological relationship with the child. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

Even research on “planned” same-sex families—those created using assisted reproductive technology (ART)—reveals the significance of biological ties. (Read more about the research on the same-sex households HERE)

Traditional marriage, defined as between one man and one woman, is here to stay. Why? Because it is a most perfect union.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Apple Fires Employee on Same Day He Was Targeted For His Pro-Family Stand

First Open Homosexual Chosen for Pentagon Chief of Staff; Ban on Transvestites to be Lifted

‘Historic’ Sixth Circuit Ruling Upholds Marriage Amendment

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) played an instrumental role in a ruling issued late yesterday afternoon in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to preserve traditional marriage, stopping the homosexual juggernaut that had been sweeping the nation. In its 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit upheld marriage laws from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote the opinion joined by Judge Deborah Cook.“Historic” Sixth Circuit Ruling Defers to the People; Upholds Marriage Amendment Crafted by the Thomas More Law Center

The Thomas More Law Center played a significant role in crafting Michigan’s constitutional amendment upheld by the Court.  TMLC also filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) on behalf of a Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian leaders supporting traditional marriage.

Responding to yesterday’s ruling, Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel commented, “This opinion is an historic and elegant defense of the principle of judicial restraint and deference to democracy and the voice of the people. It could well become the catalyst for the US Supreme Court to finally take-up the issue as well as the basis of an ultimate Supreme Court decision to allow the individual states to decide the definition of marriage.”

The Sixth Circuit ruled that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman were constitutional, even in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in U.S. v. Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).  The Sixth Circuit held that deference must be given to the individual states to regulate marriage, and that defining marriage between a man and a woman—as it has been for “thousands of years,” “span[ning] almost every society in history”—is a constitutional and rational act of the states.

TMLC played an intricate part in this crucial victory.  In 2004, TMLC crafted the Michigan Marriage Amendment which was upheld by yesterday’s decision.    TMLC cautiously ensured that the Marriage Amendment served no discriminatory purpose and explained its reasoning in the amendment itself, stating:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

Mich. Const. Art. I, § 25.

Michigan’s Marriage Amendment was passed by fifty- nine percent of Michigan’s voters.  Supporters of “homosexual marriage” have not tried to pass their own legislation through the usual channels of democracy, but have tried to use judges to bypass the ballot box. Their strategy has proven successful in several courts across the county. It failed in the Sixth Circuit.

Instrumental to the Sixth Circuit’s decision was TMLC’s amicus brief that provided a full legal analysis explaining why marriage amendments that protect traditional marriage are constitutional.  The brief was submitted as part of TMLC’s national strategy to defend laws protecting traditional marriage and to enlighten courts on why traditional marriage is the only sound response to the approximately 90 cases filed in the past year by pro-homosexual activists.  TMLC has filed several briefs nationally as an answer to this assault on Christianity and traditional family values.

TMLC’s amicus brief was filed on behalf of a Coalition of African-American pastors and Christian leaders to reflect the voice of a majority of African-Americans that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is not the same thing as racial discrimination and that tradition and morality should not be discarded as a basis of the law as the pro-homosexual judges have done in their opinions.

A legal team consisting of TMLC’s senior trial counsel, Erin Mersino, and Co-counsels William R. Wagner and John S. Kane of Lansing, MI, has been filing briefs in significant cases dealing with traditional marriage.

Coalition member, Pastor Danny Holliday of Victory Baptist Church, of Alton, Illinois reacted to yesterday’s ruling, “I am grateful to God because the Sixth Circuit overturned the decisions, concluding the definition of marriage should be left to the voters — not judges — and that voters should be allowed to decide whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.”

Coalition member, Minister Stacy Swimp, of Greater Bibleway Temple, stated, “I thank God that the U.S. 6th Circuit Court has lived up to its appointed responsibility to interpret law rather than create new laws. The ruling is indeed a major victory for traditional marriage and a strong affirmation of our nation’s Judeo Christian values and culture.”

Janet Boynes, another Coalition member reacted, “This is a great victory for those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage, but we know the fight isn’t over. We pray for Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and his family as they might have to face the rage of those with opposing views.

The Sixth Circuit adopted many of TMLC’s legal arguments including its point of view that preservation of our Nation’s tradition and morality should not be replaced with the trendy, moral relativism of only the last decade.  The brief states, “Some truths are self-evident. Among them are that men and women are different. In fact, it is clear from our very existence that men are made for women, and women for men. None of us would be here but for that truth. Another self-evident truth is that it is best for children to be raised by their parents whenever possible. There have been many theories to the contrary throughout history, but they have all proven vacuous at best. Public policy that recognizes and acts on these truths is not unfairly discriminatory. In fact, the only way to have sound public policy is to build on such truths.”

Click here to read the Court’s Opinion

Judge Upholds Tennessee Marriage Amendment by Bethany Monk

A state judge in Tennessee ruled in favor of the voter-approved constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This is the first time a judge has upheld such an amendment since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2013.

The Tennessee case involves two men who obtained a marriage license in Iowa four years ago. The couple is now seeking a divorce in Tennessee.

simmons_russell_e

Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons

In the decision, Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons “rejected the idea that the Windsor decision undercut state authority,” Supreme Court reporter Lyle Dennison wrote on ScotusBlog.com.

Though the ruling applies only to this couple, it’s still notable.

“The value of this decision is in being able to counter the Left’s boasting that same-sex marriage is a ‘done deal’ in the courts. It’s not,” said Focus on the Family Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht. “And if the recent oral arguments in the 6th Circuit cases involving marriage amendments — of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan — provide any clues as to that court’s upcoming decision, it looks like those states’ right to define marriage as one-man, one-woman could receive a huge judicial boost as well.”

A similar case has been heard at the Texas Supreme Court. A decision has not been issued. Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, applauds Simmons for respecting marriage.

“The federal government and activist judges have no authority to redefine marriage in Tennessee, Texas, or any other state,” he explained. “It should continue to be a state’s right to recognize the ‘best definition of marriage’ and affirm the unique good that a mom and dad play in a child’s life. We will continue to proudly stand for what’s right, no matter how hard the federal government and the out-of-control judiciary tries to redefine marriage against the will of the people and states.”

Hausknecht agrees.

“The definition of marriage is a state issue, as Justice Kennedy told us in last summer’sWindsor decision,” he said. “It’s time that the courts took him at his word.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Read the decision in Borman v. Borman.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Citizen Link.

Family Group Vows to Remind Voters Of Consequences of 296

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA— Florida Family Action has released documentation today gathered from the Duval County Supervisor of Elections office displaying how the citizens of Jacksonville voted on Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment in 2008. The report is broken out by each Council Member’s district, showing both the precise number and percentage of voter’s voting for marriage and against the creation of new gay rights on this issue.

Not a single district had less than 59% voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Amendment, which amended the Florida Constitution to include language to prohibit “no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Percentages range from district to district, all showing a decided majority in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Districts 1, 8, 10 and 11 had more than 70% voting in favor of the Amendment, with 78.9% of District 12’s citizens voting Yes.

John Stemberger President of Florida Family Action released the following statement today:

Jacksonville residents will not be fooled about the real intent and purpose of this ordinance. Full legalized gay marriage is the goal of its proponents. 2012-296 is just a stepping stone to that end. In every state where traditional marriage laws were overturned to allow homosexual marriages, whether by judicial decision or state legislature, proponents of gay marriage cited the collective scheme of non discrimination ordinances that created new protected classes like the one proposed in 296. Local ordinances of this nature have been consistently used as legal precedent for introducing gay marriage. Even state constitutional amendments supporting traditional marriage, like California’s recently overturned amendment, are not safe. We pledge to remind the constituents in every Council Member’s district who votes for this bill on August 15 about its true effect. It would be our hope that members of the Council will remember both the commanding vote margin in this research and the recent record lines outside of Chick fil A stores in Jacksonville this past week in support of natural marriage.

This data has been released for the information of the City Council while they are considering Ordinance 2012-296, a bill that would amend several City ordinances to add “sexual orientation, and perhaps gender identity or expression” to the listings of personal conditions or statuses which cannot be discriminated against. The ordinances proposed to be amended include Public Accommodations, Fair Housing, and others.

Voting yes on 296 would be decidedly against the will of the citizens of Jacksonville, who overwhelmingly voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage when given the chance. The City Council may wish to consider the way their constituents voted when this similar issue was presented directly to them.