It has been stated by a few left leaning visitors that I am obsessed with a particular topic.  In fact, it is stated by many on the left, that people of the conservative persuasion are also obsessed in the same way.  The charge is that we are obsessed with the sexual practices of others.  In my case, I am accused of being obsessed with the sexual practices of homosexuals particularly.  Well.  Is it truly a case of me being obsessed?  Let’s see.

June was, as observed in my last post, was “Mental Dysfunc…” er, “Gay Pride Month”.  But now June is over.  How do we account for what followed? 

-On 2July, my local newspaper ran an editorial encouraging the acceptance of “Gay Marriage” in this country.

Stories in a variety of media sources included”

-A lesbian soccer player (I believe she was) came out and encouraged other lesbians in sports to come out as well.
-Anderson Cooper officially came out (as if anyone was surprised), to which announcement an online source added a list of over thirty celebrities who have come out, as if more doing wrong makes it right.
-The Episcopal General Convention approves same-sex blessing rites.

This is just a sample of stories gleaned, just through my normal reading of news sources, but not all of them.  I’ve forgotten at least a couple and this is only since that July 2nd editorial.  I’m obsessed? 

Clearly someone’s obsessed with all things homosexual, and it isn’t me.  I merely observe the culture being pressured to accept this behavior as morally benign and no different than normal attractions.  It is pushed constantly through media images of all sorts, from entertainment to “serious” discussion pretending to educate to the political pandering of the Democratic Party.  It doesn’t go away.  And I’m obsessed?

Not at all.  I simply join in with organizations like Illinois Family Institute, AFTAH and bloggers who seek to counter the onslaught as best we can. 

Is that obsession on my part?  I don’t think so.  It isn’t the only bad behavior I’ve highlighted.  I have posts on abortion, racism and being a liberal (yeah, that’s bad behavior).  If I obsess about anything, it would be in encouraging proper behavior in many areas of human existence.  Heck, I obsess about my own behavior. 

I make no apologies about the number of posts I do on the subject of homosexuality in America.  I feel privileged to have the ability and outlet to express myself in a manner that honors both God and my fellow man in continuing to point out the many falsehoods perpetuated by activists and their willing and often misguided supporters and enablers.   It’s a worthy cause and to open eyes and hearts to the truth, even if it’s just a few, or even one, makes it so.

Earlier this week my local newspaper had two articles related to “Gay Pride Month”.  June is “Gay Pride Month”.  (July is “Obsessive/Compulsive Pride Month”, August is “Bi-Polar Pride Month” and I believe September is “Psychopath Pride Month”…in this country we take great pride and celebrate mental dysfunction.)  Of the two articles, one focused on the lack of celebratory events in the suburbs to where, like so many normal people, many homosexuals have moved for better schools, less crime, etc.  The article referred to Chicago’s annual “Gay Pride” parade, where children of all ages can witness various and extreme manifestations of this particular dysfunction, such as simulated sex acts by freakishly attired parade participants. (I would imagine the July parade being very neat and tidy, with far straighter lines and better synchronized marching.)

So there apparently was some kind of conference, seminar or coffee klatch, I don’t remember which as I don’t have that issue of the paper anymore.  There were all sorts of anecdotes and testimonies about life in the burbs as a homosexual.  But the part that I found most fascinating, as well as most annoying, was about one straight guy who spoke of starting or being part of a campaign whereby Christians wear these tee-shirts emblazoned with the words, “I’m Sorry”, meant to apologize to the dear homosexual souls who have been treated so harshly by the Church.  He didn’t say which church, so I assume he meant the Body of Christ in general.  He said he wanted the sad and suffering homosexuals to know that “God loves them just the way they are.”

I’d much prefer this guy not speak for me or the Church of God by saying this blatant falsehood.  And herein lies the point of this post.  That statement told to those unfortunates who want it to be true, that “God loves them just the way they are” is not something that can be supported by Scripture.

I pass a UCC church several times during my workday.  It has had a message on the sign in front of it which says, “God loves you no matter what.”  I’m going to stick my neck out and suggest that it means pretty much the same thing the dude with the tee-shirt is saying (considering it IS a UCC church).  But both of these statements send the wrong message.  An absolutely wrong message.

There is this sad notion that unless God is just the sweetest God around then some people just won’t worship Him.  Somehow, we are just fine no matter what we do (as long as we don’t hurt no one and are really, really nice to people).  Whence comes this notion?  Well.  We all know the answer to that.  It comes from selfishness and self-centeredness and the notion that “doing things God’s way is HARD!!!”

But there’s no justification for the “just the way your are” business”.  It brings to mind a question Bill Cosby asked of a guy who was defending his cocaine use.  The dude said, “It makes you more of what you are.”  Cosby asked, “What if you’re an asshole?”  The question fits the premise posited by the dude above.  God loves you just the way you are?  But what if you’re an asshole?  Or worse?  Does He love child molesters just the way they are?

The reality is far different.  God loves us despite how we are and the distinction is in how each of us is to deal with how each of us is.  If who we are is sinful and rebellious by the standards of God’s clearly revealed Will for human behavior, His love for us will not result in our being spared our just rewards.  Our love for Him, our belief in Him is manifested in our intention to become something pleasing to Him based on the standards for human behavior described so clearly and plainly in Scripture. They clearly and unmistakably run deeper than merely being really, really nice to people.  They are far more comprehensive than that.  The dude is lying to the homosexual community, but the lie is believed by far more people than him and those homosexuals who wish it to be true.

The topic of today’s Agenda Lies installment is the notion that declassification of homosexual behavior as a mental illness or disorder was a result of any scientific research or study.  Here we have a former president of the APA saying exactly what I’ve stated in other posts and comments, which is that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism.  What’s more, Dr. Nicholas Cummings supports the Agenda That Doesn’t Exist, but is honest enough to tell the truth. 

(This also points to a common misconception regarding which side of the political divide rejects science in order to maintain a position.  Once again we see it is the left that does this, not the right.)

Pressure from the homosexual activists is essential in overriding the logic, morality and science that supports the positions of their opponents.  What else is left to them but to be obnoxious?  As stated many times, if there was sound science upon which to rely, that science would be at the forefront of every debate related to the Agenda’s advancement.  But we’re not graced with any such evidence from science.  What passes for scientific evidence is the APA’s support.  I guess because psychology and psychiatry are sciences, then it is enough for an association of those scientific practitioners to merely state that something is so for it to be regarded as scientific evidence.  At least it’s enough for the supporters of the Agenda (and lefties in general) who would prefer no one look too deeply into an issue they support.

On a side note, there is a list of links to related articles at the bottom of the article to which I’ve linked above.  One of them carried this:

“Statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents of those states,” states the APA, which bills itself as “a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people.”

Really?  Do homosexuals often sit about anguishing over this issue to the point of being significantly stressed?  There are laws in my state that deny me access to a few things, such as the right to carry a weapon to protect myself.  Such denial has never been particularly stressful for me.  What’s wrong with those people that they are so easily stressed?  I thought they were no different than the rest of us.

This is where the above mentioned may say to me anything they like, ask me any question or whatever their dark hearts desire.  All comments from anyone else will be deleted. 

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to listen to the Michael Medved show on the radio. He was talking to a guy who is an atheist I believe is named Edwin Kagan.  That might be wrong, but who cares?  The point is what was being discussed and the position this guy was taking.  He runs a camp for atheist kids and is some level of legal guy trying to mess with the decision of the 9/11 museum to feature a cross still standing after the towers came down.  I’m fuzzy on the details, but it is my understanding that this cross was merely an assembly of twisted remains of the building that was in the shape of the Christian cross.  It was taken by some as a sign of some kind, and felt by some worthy of preserving as a symbol of some kind relevant to the event.  I haven’t seen it myself and don’t know if I would agree with what it means, even if I couldn’t see anything but a Christian-style cross in its shape.  That doesn’t matter, either.  What matters is that another atheist feels compelled to assert the stupid notion that this “thing” in a publicly funded museum is some kind of constitutional assault.

What’s with these people?  Like homosexuals, atheists are a very small segment of our population.  Like homosexual activists, atheist activists are an even smaller, but annoyingly cloying percentage of them.  Worse yet, their arguments almost make those of the homosexual seem legitimate.

As usual, I was driving when I heard this conversation and did not hear it in its entirety.  But I heard the gist of it several times.  It was that allowing this cross to stand alone suggests to the objective observer that the government endorses the Christian religion over others.  I don’t know what constitutes an “objective observer” to this guy, but “brain dead atheist” has to be part of its definition.  I mean, who else thinks like that?

I believe, but cannot swear, that this guy was described as a “constitutional” lawyer.  In any case, I’m sure I was right in understanding him to be well versed in constitutional matters.  But his argument belies that claim.  As we all (should) know perfectly well, the 1st Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

So the first issue is, since when is “endorse” synonymous with “establish”?  Let’s assume that the United States government fully endorsed Christianity as a good and beneficial lifestyle for its citizens to adopt.  That’s merely an opinion and an opinion does not equal establishing Christianity as the state religion.  It is the difference between saying, “We think  our nation would benefit if everyone lived like Christians.” versus “We mandate that only the Christian religion is acceptable in this country.”  The 1st prohibits the latter, but makes no reference to the former in any way.

Throughout our history, I think one would be hard-pressed to find any president that did not endorse to some degree religious faith and adherence, mostly Christian.  Doubtless, it would be more difficult to find a case where any president spoke against it.  To publicly speak in either direction is not denied the president constitutionally. 

There is also a vast difference between establishing a religion and acknowledging the faith of 80% or more of the population.  By that number, we are a Christian nation.  This acknowledgement, even by our government or any representative of it, is nothing at all like establishing a religion and demanding that no other religion be practiced. 

Likewise, there is also a vast difference between the government establishing a religion, and members of a government body recognizing religious holidays with appropriate decorations, including religious decorations.  The people who work for the government and within government buildings are still citizens with the absolute right to express their religious convictions and to celebrate their holidays.  Doing so is NOT an establishment of religion.

Those who insist that “separation of church and state” prohibits any of the above practices have bastardized the intention of Jefferson and those who ratified the Constitution.  What’s more, I believe they know full well that they are distorting the meaning of the 1st and are doing so purposely.  Pushing aside religion from the public square allows for pretending arguments against secular positions are faith based only, and thus illegitimate.  When logic and reason overwhelm them, they merely state the opposition is a Christian (or religious) and the argument is over. 

But the position of the atheist activist has always been so weak that the fact anyone gives them the time of day is more victory than their arguments have ever deserved.

The worst has happened! Derrick Rose has suffered a season ending injury. It is assumed by some to be one that might impact next season as well.  Some say he may never be the same.

These sentiments are premature.  Having torn my ACL, I have some experience with the situation.  The first thing I would say is that today’s techniques for dealing with such things are superior to those employed when I first tore mine.  In addition, Rose has every option open to him and the freedom to concentrate all his efforts to recovery.  His well known work ethic and devotion to the game, and being the best at it, is all we need to know in order to feel confident that as fans, we’re likely to notice no discernible difference in his game upon his return.  I would wager his opponents won’t notice much difference, either. 

But what about now?  Woe is us who expected the ultimate. 

Some, even some Chicago sports writers (at least in the paper to which I subscribe), did not expect da Bullss to go all the way.  I take it, given my limited ability to keep up with such things, that the big money was on a Heat/Thunder match up in the Finals.  So, many already doubted da Bullss ability to get by Miami, and then, assuming they could, they doubted their ability to beat OK City.  And that’s with Rose playing, so of course, without him, they have absolutely no chance to win anything, perhaps not even this series against Philly.

Nonsense. While their chances are indeed reduced without a healthy Derrick Rose, the Chicago Bulls embody not only Rose’s ethic, but coach Thib’s ethic as well.  They have the experience of playing without Rose as he’s missed so many games this year.  Their record without Rose, if extended to a full lock-out truncated season, would have put them fourth in the East.  That still makes them a contender at the very least.

Not only that, but if I’m not mistaken, some of those games won without Rose were against top teams, the Heat being one of them. 

It must also be remembered that in the last five or six games, we’ve seen Rip Hamilton find his rhythm, and Kyle Korver has been hitting shots like crazy.  And while CJ Watson has been off his game shooting wise lately, he still has hit last minute three pointers in recent games to avoid losses.  He and John Lucas III have each had multiple 20 pt games while Rose has watched from the bench.  And of course, Luol Deng has continued his usual solid play.  In short, the scoring that was lacking last year is not lacking this year.  Rose is not the only offensive weapon like he was last year.

Of course the defense and rebounding is not affected by Rose’s absence.  This will continue, and in fact, the teams dominance in that department is as much attributed to the bench players, and sometimes more so, than the starters. 

There are two general areas of liability that I think need improvement regardless of Rose’s presence or absence:  turnovers and free-throw percentage.  If the Bulls take care of the ball and keep their turnovers to less than a dozen, they’ll reduce fast break opportunities for their opponents.  Points off of turnovers are maddening and momentum busters.  It gives the opponents confidence.  Most of the turnovers that I’ve seen are of the weak passing variety.  Passing must be crisp and quick, and it seems that too many passes should never have been made in the first place, but definitely not so nonchalantly.

As for free-throws, the Bulls often do not seem to get to the line as often as seems justified.  But when they do get there, they need to drain them more often.  I don’t believe they have more than two guys who average better than 90% and they’re both bench players (Watson and Korver).  Hamilton might be over 85%, but I’m not sure, and I’m definitely not sure that we have anyone else.  Pros missing free throws seems unforgivable.  I understand the difference between scoring while running your butt off and standing still after getting hammered and expecting to hit a free throw.  It’s like the difference between fielding a line drive and a pop-fly.  You don’t have time to think about the line drive, but the free throw is like the pop up.  You have time to think about perhaps missing.  I don’t know how much time is devoted to practicing free throws, but somehow I get the feeling it ain’t enough.

Finally, there is the mere challenge of winning without Rose.  This team has a lot of pride.  They don’t like losing.  From last season to this, the Bulls have gone over 80 games without back-to-back losses, coming close to establishing a new league record for the feat. This continued throughout the 27 or so games played without Rose.  That’s a meaningful stat that says a lot about the heart of this team.  I have to think that they do not want to be “the Jordanaires”, which was how the Bulls who played with Michael Jordan were regarded by some.  It meant that without their star player, they were worthless.  These guys are gonna be pumped.  I predict they’ll finish no worse than last year, but won’t be surprised to see them go beyond.

Talk about the end of an era! I just saw the breaking news that Dick Clark has passed away. This never aging icon of the pop music world will no longer rock in another New Year.

Clark was one of those people, some we know personally, but in this case a celebrity figure, who was a fixture.

Now that I think of it, Don Cornelius just passed away as well, just this past February. Two hosts of two iconic music shows of the type, gone.

May they both rest in peace.

I came across this article from the Washington Post that I found interesting. Not surprising, just interesting. All those sad haters must be experiencing the vapors. That Rush Limbaugh would survive the controversy surrounding his comments regarding Sandra Fluke, and weather the subsequent cries for his dismissal and boycotts of his sponsors should have been foreseen even by the goofy left wing. The hopes being dashed that the incident would result in his downfall is difficult to regard without some amusement as I imagine their great disappointment. Some fun snippets:

“Limbaugh’s advertising losses may have been less than media accounts suggested. While more than 100 advertisers told Premiere that they didn’t want to be associated with “controversial” radio programs of any kind in the wake of the flap, some of these companies weren’t regular Limbaugh sponsors in the first place.”

Of course that didn’t prevent some from rejoicing from the false belief that he indeed lost what he didn’t have in the first place.

““Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success” with the show, saidRachel Nelson, spokeswoman for Premiere.”

Wise business people see Rush as a good investment of their advertising dollars because he is still the main man on radio who still draws a massive audience. That audience, as well as the advertisers, are rational people who find Rush’s overall good to far outweigh the occasional and incredibly minor bad represented by the comments about Fluke. (For the goofy lefties that visit here, I’m referring to the incident being minor, not the words he used, though they are still far from worthy of the false outrage they sought to present as real.) That’s just good business sense. What’s more, to pretend that his “crime” was so bad as to be worthy of the level of vitriol it provoked from the loonies on the left is just another example of their selective ideas of tolerance and free speech.

Yes, it did my heart good to read this piece.