For millions of people, the entrance of God into verifiable history in human form is cause for celebration. It began with that birth in Bethlehem, and it culminated with an empirically verifiable resurrection in space and time in Jerusalem. Here was an individual observably alive at point A, dead at point B, but then alive again at point C. Thus we have Easter, a rock upon which to build a house, a life, a city on a hill, and even an entire civilization, once the profoundly pro-human implications of the Judeo-Christian worldview begin to be understood and applied across the whole of thought and culture.

No one should be surprised that the consequences of factual events so amazing should cascade like fresh mountain waters over the centuries into new years and into new lives every year. Christmas becomes a time of joy and celebration. Easter becomes a time of doubt followed by certainty and then amazement. But for others it’s a different story. King Herod’s is such a story. So is that of Pontius Pilate.

Herod searched for the newborn king not to celebrate but to destroy a potential rival to power, and that is why he ordered the death of boys in Bethlehem “two years old and younger” (Matt. 1:16). Pilate had Truth staring him in the face when he asked Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:19). But instead of setting an innocent man free, a man in whom Pilate found nothing wrong, the Roman washed his hands and gave Jesus over to be crucified (Matt: 27:26), just as the religious establishment wanted.

Had Pilate really been honest in his question about truth, in a matter of days he could have begun investigating the ample evidence regarding the resurrection of the man about whom he found nothing wrong. His curiosity might have been stimulated, one would think, after hearing reports of strange goings-on at the tomb of Jesus. After all, a dead man usually does not unwrap his grave clothes, roll away a massive boulder blocking the entrance to his tomb, overcome sentries whose job (upon pain of death) is to ensure his body stays put, and then convince utterly defeated followers that he is the Lord of life.

One thing pretenders and outright liars seem to have difficulty understanding, whether they be corrupt religious leaders, maneuvering politicians, or enablers easy to command: Truth never dies, is never really defeated, even if you kill it.

Celebrations of Easter and Christmas in America today occur at a time and place far different from that of the countryside and politics of ancient Israel. And yet, there is continuity, for ours too is a time of celebration and praise -- but also one of pretense and hatred and even persecution. That’s right. Persecution is the correct word, it seems to me, if we are to reflect sensitively a Biblical understanding of what is at stake in the world today. 

Continue reading "Easter and Other Four-Letter Words."

Kristine Marsh writes at CNSNews.com:

An Iowa anti-bullying conference is planning to teach students and adults how "to fight back against propaganda from the extreme right wing, from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to Bob Vander Plaats and Jan Mickelson."

The event is being put on by Iowa Safe Schools, a gay advocacy group affiliated with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. This is its eighth annual Iowa Governor's Conference on LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) Youth, and taxpayers and students are sponsoring it, at least in part.

The conference, that takes place April 3, will feature anti-conservative and anti-Christian workshops.

"A documentary entitled For the Bible Tells Me So will be shown, along with a discussion afterwards," CNSNews reports. "The event description asks, 'Is the Bible an excuse to hate?' Another event describes how religion is a 'form of oppression' alongside racism, sexism, and homophobia."

This extreme homosexualist approach smacks of rank propaganda that discriminates against the Creator and his liberating norms for marriage, human sexuality, and unalienable rights (as opposed to pretend rights socially constructed in San Fransciso thought ghettos).

Free minds, of course, revolt and refuse to submit to organized bullying and to organized hatreds, especially when those hatreds try to hide their intent behind slogans such as "safe schools" and other deceptions designed not to inform but to conquer. 

Stand up, Iowa. Stand up to your oppressors. In love and in truth, yes, but stand. Hate must be resisted, and lies knocked down by truth. Live free. Live free.  

Related
Son of Lesbian in Paris: Meet the "Gay" Police State 
Nordstrum Decides to Stomp on Marriage
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Robert Oscar Lopez writes:

On March 24, 2013, as I stood with other speakers waiting to take the stage at Paris's "manif pour tous" against homosexual marriage, I saw tear gas sail through the air at a crowd of peaceful protesters.    

Children, elderly people, and elected officials were hit by the gas. Christine Boutin, the president of a major political party, passed out. Some videos showing what happened are posted on my blog here. . . .

The images of a police force, commanded by a gay Socialist mayor (Bernard Delanoe), shooting tear gas at children was worse than the imagery of Lt. Pike pepper-spraying college students in Davis, and worse, I would say, than the Jim Crow police force using dogs and water hoses on black children during the famous protests led by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. . . .

Having spent so many years in the gay community, I found myself falling into an emotional nadir as violence marred events, both in Brussels and Paris. In both cases, it was the side militating for gay parenting that used physical intimidation: a combination of riled street thugs and armed riot police, the deadly cocktail of "unofficial" and "official" violence that characterizes the dynamics of so many police states. . . . 

"Whatever becomes of same-sex marriage in the United States," Lopez concludes, "the gay movement poses a much longer-term problem. Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation, but rather an ideology. The LGBT movement is not a community, but rather a political machine. . . .  [I]t is the face of an ancient urge which must always be resisted: the lust for power and domination."

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to "Unlimited Statism" 
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat

Editor's note: While the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8 this week, apologists for homosexual "marriage" ask how such an arrangement poses any harm to society. In fact, very much is at stake, and negatively so, for the individual person and for society at large, as Nancy Pearcey demonstrates below, in remarks published in 2011, prior to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

The conservative coalition has always been unstable. And homosexuality may be the issue on which it shatters.

Several groups have announced that they will boycott next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because of its decision to invite the pro-homosexual activist group GOProud to participate.

Dissenting groups include the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, The American Principles Project, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.

Not all conservatives support the boycott. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey opines that by pulling out, social conservatives create the perception "that they don’t even want to debate their position on homosexuality."

At Commentary, Peter Wehner says that these groups could give the impression "that they do not have the arguments needed to win on the merits."

Unfortunately, too many Americans already have that impression -- especially younger voters. A 2009 Pew study found that 58 percent of young adults 18 to 29 years old support same-sex "marriage," compared to 39 percent of the population nationwide.

By voting with their feet, however, social conservatives are not giving up, they are taking a public stand -- which creates a forum to make their case more effectively. They should take this opportunity to argue that the practice of homosexuality has a negative impact not just on the family but also on individuals -- that it expresses a profound disrespect for a person’s biological identity.

Biologically, physiologically, males and females are clearly counterparts to one another. The male sexual and reproductive anatomy is obviously designed for a relationship with a female, and vice versa.

Homosexual practice thus requires individuals to contradict their own biology. It disconnects a person’s sexuality from his or her biological identity as male or female -- which exerts a self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality.

And the logic of alienation will not stop there. Already the acceptance of same-sex relationships is metastasizing into a postmodern notion of sexuality as fluid and changing over time.

For example, an article in the Utne Reader highlights individuals who came out of the closet as homosexual, but were later attracted to heterosexual relationships again. The article quotes psychotherapist Bret Johnson explaining that people today "don’t want to fit into any boxes -- not gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual ones." Instead "they want to be free to change their minds."

What we’re seeing, Johnson concludes, is "a challenge to the old, modernist way of thinking 'This is who I am, period' and a movement toward a postmodern version, 'This is who I am right now.'"

In other words, yesterday I was straight, today I may be homosexual, and tomorrow I could be bisexual. One’s psychosexual identity is said to be in constant flux.

In the past, homosexuals employed the defense that they were born that way. But now they are beginning to embrace the postmodern idea that you can be anything you want to be along a sexual continuum.

This contradicts conservatism at its philosophical core. Conservatism bases human rights on the recognition that there are certain non-negotiable givens in human nature, prior to the state, which the state is obligated to respect.

As political scientist Philippe Beneton explains, in conservatism, equality "is grounded in the recognition of what is human." By contrast, in liberalism, equality "is founded on the claim that nothing is specifically human" -- that human nature itself is a social construction, something we make up as we go along, including our psychosexual identity.

In that case, however, there is nothing in the individual that is given, which the state is therefore obligated to respect. Liberalism undermines the basis for inalienable human rights.

The CPAC walkout is a chance to highlight what is at stake. Jesse Hathaway at NewsReal Blog defends CPAC, saying, "I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me."

But it does affect him -- and everyone else. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts and approves the practice, it implicitly commits itself to the worldview that supports it -- all the more so if the practice is enshrined in law.

If America accepts practices such as same-sex "marriage," in the process it will absorb the accompanying worldview -- the redefinition of human personhood as a purely social construction -- which opens the door to unlimited statism, because there is no human nature that an oppressive state could possibly offend.

Those who resist will be compelled by the state to go along, or face penalties for "discrimination."

Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote." Instead of caving on this issue, the leaders of CPAC should be vigorously advancing the core arguments of conservatism. Not just to win the vote but to preserve the foundation of the American republic.

Note: This column first appeared in The Daily Caller.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"  
Memo to Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend

Nancy will appear on KRKS 97.4 FM radio today at 4:00 pm mountain time (5 pm, central; 6 pm eastern).

You can call the show, "Crosswalk with Gino Geraci," at 1-800-277-8946.

To listen online, go here.

Editor's Note: Nancy Pearcey's analysis below seems to have particular relevance now that the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Prop 8:

The ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down Proposition 8 raises a host of issues that go far beyond the California case. Especially troubling is Walker’s view of gender. His ruling makes the sweeping assertion that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

This declaration is being quoted in astonishment for its sheer breathtaking exaggeration. Yet it reveals a pivotal element in the liberal view of human sexuality.

Liberal ethics is based on a fragmented view of the human being that pits biology against choice. Its roots go back to the French philosopher Rene Descartes, who proposed that the body is a machine controlled by a completely separate thing called the mind. The ghost in the machine.

As philosopher Daniel Dennett explains, “Since Descartes in the 17th century we have had a vision of the self as a sort of immaterial ghost that owns and controls a body the way you own and control your car.” In other words, the body is no longer regarded as an integral part of the human person but as sub-personal, functioning strictly on the level of biology and chemistry -- almost like a possession that can be used to serve the self’s desires.

This is the philosophy that underlies arguments for same-sex “marriage.” The assumption is that our bodies have nothing to do with our identity as persons. And that, therefore, anatomy can be overridden by sheer self-expressive choice.

The denigration of physical anatomy does not stop with same-sex “marriage.” The cutting edge issue today is transgenderism, a movement that rejects the distinction between male and female itself as a mere social construction -- and an oppressive one at that.

According to the New York Times, several universities now offer separate bathrooms, housing and sports teams for transgender students who do not identify themselves as either male or female. Some schools no longer require students to check male or female on their health forms. Instead, they are asked to “describe your gender identity history." In other words: Which genders have you been over the course of your lifetime?

Gender has become a postmodern concept -- fluid, free-floating, completely detached from physical anatomy.

Several states have already passed laws mandating that schools and workplaces accommodate transgenders, and supporters are pushing hard for the same laws at the national level. In 2007, California passed a law requiring schools to permit transgender students to use the restroom or locker room of their preferred gender, regardless of their anatomical sex. The new law redefines sex as socially constructed gender: “Gender means sex and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”

Note the assumption that your sex is “assigned” to you, as though it were purely arbitrary instead of an anatomical fact. The law is being used to impose a secular liberal worldview that dismisses physical anatomy as insignificant, inconsequential and completely irrelevant to gender identity.

As I show in Saving Leonardo, this represents a devastatingly disrespectful view of the physical body. It alienates people from their own bodies, treating anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity. No dignity is accorded to the unique capabilities inherent in being male or female.

Ironically, Christians are often dismissed as prudes and Puritans because of their “repressive” sexual morality -- and yet the Christian worldview actually affirms a much higher view of the body than the liberal, utilitarian view. It offers the radically positive affirmation that the material world was created by God, that it will ultimately be made whole by God and that God was actually incarnated (made flesh) in a human body.

In the ancient world, these claims were so astonishing that the Gnostics rejected them, and tried to turn Jesus into an avatar who only appeared to have a human body. They could not accept the idea of a Creator who celebrates our material, biological, sexual nature.

Today’s liberal elites such as Judge Walker may pose as enlightened liberators, but in fact they are secular Gnostics, treating physical anatomy as having no intrinsic dignity or purpose. In an unexpected twist of history, it is once again Christians who are defending a high and holistic view of the human person.

Note: This analysis originally appeared in WND.

Related 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend

Ryan MacPherson writes at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

As the cliché would have it, "You can’t legislate morality." But some Minnesota lawmakers think they can legislate biology instead.

The interaction of two bills introduced in the Legislature this session defies the facts of Biology 101.

A "biological parent," as crafted in SF370 and SF925, would no longer include only the birth mother and the man who got her pregnant, but potentially six persons. (emphasis added)

The Legislature’s proposed allowance for up to six adults to claim biological parentage of the same child takes the marriage debate to a new level.

No longer will people be asking whether every child has the right to a mom and a dad -- or whether same-sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples.

Now a child can have up to six persons whom the law will recognize as "presumptive biological parents."

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
The "Gay" Anti-Science 
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist" 

The following press announcement was released today by Liberty Counsel:

Washington, D.C. -- Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented regarding the oral arguments made today before the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry on Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative defining marriage as one man and one woman.

"No one can predict how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the Prop 8 case, but based on oral arguments today, it is possible a majority of Justices could rule that the proponents of Prop 8 lack standing and dismiss the case.

"If that happens, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would be dismissed, leaving perhaps only the Northern District of California court ruling. This would mean the ruling applies only to the northern part of California.

"It is possible the Court could even dismiss the district court ruling and save the issue of marriage for another case. Of course, there is always the possibility the Court could issue a limited ruling or a broad ruling on the matter.

"If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way and rules that there is somehow a 'constitutional right to same-sex marriage,' it will become, in my view, an illegitimate arbiter of the rule of law. It will have lost its legitimacy in its entirety, and will have just simply morphed into a political machine.

"Common sense and a quick read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage," said Staver.

"The natural family is fundamental to our very existence. Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into responsible citizens. Healthy children require committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman,” Staver concluded.

Liberty Counsel submitted an amicus brief on this case to the Supreme Court and has defended many marriage laws in California since 2004.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

Related
Update: 1.4 MILLION French March Against Homosex "Marriage" 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits has the story at Lifesitenews.com. Smits "directly witnessed the events that took place during this extraodinary event. She confirms the enormous numbers claimed by organizers," and she "reports on many aspects either ignored or distorted by French and other media," according to Lifesitenews. 

Here is video of the protest in Paris.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marraige Equality" 
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers

Here's the announcement from the Office of Student Life at Houston Baptist University:

This fall the only apologetics course for undergraduates is a course offered through HBU's Francis Schaeffer Center titled "Worldview Apologetics: 'Testing Everything' with C.S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer."

The course is limited to juniors and seniors (others with instructor permission). It will be listed as APOL 3381 Special Topics. In Huskynet, Nancy Pearcey is listed as the instructor and the title as SP TOP: Wrldview:Lewis/Schaeffer. For a longer description, click here.

Related
Francis Schaeffer: A Student's Appreciation of a Distinct Approach 
Politics, Science, and the Virgin Birth

The website of Evangelicals Now, a monthly newspaper available in England, has published "What Is Killing the Western World?," which I was honored to write as the Foreword to Emancipating the World, by our friend Darrow Miller of Disciple Nations Alliance.

To see "What Is Killing the Western World?" at The Pearcey Report, please go here.

Eric Owens writes at The Daily Caller:

The story about the Florida Atlantic University [FAU] student who says he ended up suspended because he refused to stomp on a piece of paper bearing the word “JESUS” has really taken off nationally. . . .

Junior Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, says he was booted from class after he told an FAU school official that the Jesus-stomping assignment made him uncomfortable.

An FAU official initially defended the suspension, telling local CBS affiliate WPEC that the Jesus-stomping was part of a classroom exercise from a textbook, Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition.

On Friday, reports Todd Starnes of Fox News, FAU issued an apology for [Deandre] Poole’s assignment. The public, taxpayer-funded school said it won’t be using the assignment again.

"We sincerely apologize for any offense this has caused,” the apology says, according to The Daily Caller. "Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."

Related
Democrat Official Makes Students "Stomp on Jesus" ... "Secular Disciples of 'Diversity' and 'Tolerance'" 
Professors Admit Discrimination Against Conservatives

In his most recent column, Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action writes:

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law. 

Will the high court revolt on behalf of intelligence against "marriage equality"?

Will the justices assert a critical distance that allows them to see beyond the well-practiced PR boom-boom and recognize, as I wrote last week, "that the kind of 'equality' promoted in 'marriage equality' is alien in theory, and inferior in results, to the genuinely liberating concept of 'created equal' we find in planted in the Declaration of Independence?"

Or will they lose perspective and fail to realize, as Barber notes, that the "fierce push for 'gay marriage' has nothing to do with 'marriage equality' and everything to do with 'marriage extinction'"?

The Supreme Court may find it of interest that lesbian journalist Masha Gessen signaled the real endame of "marriage equality" during a conference last summer in Sydney, Australia.

"It's a no-brainer," she said, "that the institution of marriage should not exist."

We can honestly posit that Gessen holds her views sincerely. And yet, however she holds them, they reflect a personal attachment to what ultimately is an arbitrary and relativistic approach to marriage.

It is a counterfeit complaining about the authentic, the spurious complaining about the injustice of the genuine.

And if U.S. justices follow her lead, the result will not be law, but legalized anarchy enforced by legalized crime.

If yesterday crime "was put on trial," warns Albert Camus, "today it determines the law." That is regress, not progress; reactionary, not humanitarian.

The revolt of intelligence says Masha Gessen is welcome to her private feelings but that she, and others who share her sentiments, should refrain from trying to impose them upon the rest of us. That would be intolerant, oppressive, and profoundly discriminatory.

Related
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat
"Gay" Totalitarianism
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers

Paul Joseph Watson writes at Infowars:

Californian Congressman Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House peers have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] demanding to know why the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition and whether the purchases are part of a deliberate attempt to restrict supply to the American people.

The DHS has committed to purchasing around 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last year. Many believe the purchases are exacerbating bullet shortages across the country, supplies already strained by record sales prompted as a result of the Obama administration’s gun control agenda.

Related
Caddell: "This Country Is on the Verge of Explosion"
Is "Homeland" Ammo for Obama's "National Security Force"?

Peter Sprigg writes at the FRC blog:

The media has jumped on a new "Policy Statement" issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which endorses the redefinition of marriage, arguing, 'Scientific evidence affirms that children . . . receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders.'

This is a highly misleading claim, especially in light of the research published last year by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus -- the most methodologically-sound research on the subject ever done, using a large and representative population-based sample -- which showed children whose parents had a homosexual relationship suffered numerous disadvantages compared with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.

"In any case," Sprigg continues, "it is unclear whether the 'Policy Statement' [accurately] represents the views of any more pediatricians than the two lead authors and the six members of the AAP’s 'Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health'."

"It is certain," Sprigg says, "that they do not speak for all pediatricians -- as indicated by the press release . . . issued today by an alternative group, the American College of Pediatricians."

Here is the press release from the American College of Pediatricians:

Gainesville, Florida (March 21, 2013) -- The American College of Pediatricians reaffirms that the intact, functional family consisting of a married (female) mother and (male) father provides the best opportunity for children. The College, therefore, disputes the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) claim that supporting same-sex unions promotes the "well-being of children."

In its newly released statement, "Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian," the AAP ignores important research on risks to children in favor of the wants of adults.

"The College does not support the alteration of this time-honored and proven standard to conform to pressures from 'politically correct' groups. No one concerned with the well-being of children can reasonably ignore the evidence for maintaining the current standard, nor can they or we ignore the equally strong evidence that harm to children can result if the current standards are rejected," says Den Trumbull, MD, President of the American College of Pediatricians.

"The AAP ignores generations of evidence of health risks to children in advocating for the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage and child-rearing."

As I have shown in "The Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality'," the openly admitted trajectory of the homosexualist push for "equality" in marriage is not marriage at all, but rather "'marriage equality' becomes 'marriage elasticity,' with the ultimate goal of 'marriage extinction'." 

Or as one lesbian journalist put it last summer while speaking at a conference, "The institution of marriage should not exist."

Related
The "Gay" Anti-Science  
"Gay" Totalitarianism   
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat 

Fred Lucas reports at CNSNews:

Minnesota state legislators considering a same-sex "marriage" bill for the state did not have an answer to an 11-year-old girl’s question on which parent is not needed.

"Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way,” Grace Evans, 11, said before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law last week. "I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need -- my mom or my dad?"

"She paused for eight seconds as the legislators on the committee sat silent," CNSNews reports. "Evans then said, 'I’ll ask again, which parent do I not need -- my mom or my dad?' She paused again, this time for 13 seconds of silence from state lawmakers."

And then the brave Minnesota lawmakers struck silent by the question of an 11-year-old "voted in favor of the gay 'marriage' bill and sent it to the full House."

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
Ending Regressive Public Education
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman

Hospitals routinely overprice products and procedures so steeply that some doctors find they can offer services dramatically more cheaply without going through insurance at all.

In "The Obamacare Revolt," Jim Epstein at Reason.com reports on how "Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care." 

He tells the story of Dr. Lisa Davidson, who experienced "8 years of frustration while running a successful traditional practice in Denver, Colorado."

Epstein writes:

When she was operating a traditional practice, Davidson witnessed firsthand how our "payment plans for routine expenses" drive up prices and block innovation.

She recalls that one insurance company paid $118 for a routine PSA test. Now that her patients pay the bill directly, the cost is $18.

Insurance used to pay $128 for a bag of IV fluid. Now Davidson doesn't bother passing on the cost of IV bags because they run $1.50 each. . . .

"What people don't realize is that most doctors employ an army of people for coding, billing, and gathering payment," says Neuhofel.

"That means you have to charge $200 to remove an ingrown toenail." Neuhofel charges $50.

This approach to healthcare is called "Direct primary care." It includes "price honesty" and is making waves, according to this video report report titled "Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare."

Related
Texas Gov. Perry Says No to Obamacare State Exchanges 
Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free -- Without Parental Consent

Noel Sheppard writes at Newsbusters:

Republican Teddy Turner, the son of media mogul Ted Turner, made news last month when he blamed his father's liberalism on actress Jane Fonda.

He made more news Wednesday on NewsMax TV's Steve Malzberg Show saying that CNN is "pretty much to the left" and that he has such a "hard time watching them" he mostly watches Fox.

Related
Stephanopoulos on Video: No Liberal Bias in Media 
White House Correspondent Doesn't Stand for Pledge of Allegiance

Lisa Miller writes at New York Magazine:

This is not the retreat from high-­pressure workplaces of a previous generation but rather a more active awakening to the virtues of the way things used to be.

Patricia Ireland, who lives on the Upper West Side, left her job as a wealth adviser in 2010 after her third child was born. Now, even though her husband, also in finance, has seen his income drop since the recession, she has no plans to go back to work.

She feels it’s a privilege to manage her children’s lives -- “not just what they do, but what they believe, how they talk to other children, what kind of story we read together. That’s all dictated by me. Not by my nanny or my babysitter.”

Her husband’s part of the arrangement is to go to work and deposit his paycheck in the joint account. “I’m really grateful that my husband and I have fallen into traditional gender roles without conflict,” says Ireland. “I’m not bitter that I’m the one home and he goes to work. And he’s very happy that he goes to work”. . . .

Home, to these women, is more than a place to watch TV at the end of the day and motherhood more than a partial identity. It is a demanding, full-time endeavor, requiring all of their creativity, energy, and ingenuity.

Kelly Makino set up a giant mothers’ group in northern Jersey, using her M.S.W. to help other parents pool time and resources. (Such “side projects,” she says, have the added benefit of “keeping us sane.”)

Homeschooling, once the province of Christian conservatives, is now increasingly chosen by lefty families; in New York City, the number of children being taught in their apartments rose by nearly 10 percent over the past year. . . .

If you want a context for understanding why this is happening, please see "How Women Started the Culture War," which is chapter 12 of my book Total Truth.

Related
Yahoo!'s Regressive Work-From-Home Ban Is Bad News for Families  
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
Ending Regressive Public Education 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Tony Lee writes at Breitbart:

Critics claim it is heavy on process, metrics, and outreach to celebrities and minorities while being short on conservative substance -- which, they fear, would ensure more Mitt Romneys are nominated over insurgent Tea Party and grassroots candidates like Ted Cruz.

"Here is a rule of politics which just does not change, ever: When Republicans distinguish themselves from Democrats, they almost always win, and when they don't, they almost always lose," Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, is quoted as saying.

Related
David Limbaugh Now "Wondering About Long-Term Viability" of Republican Party 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Limbaugh writes:

The Republican Party must remain the party of mainstream Reagan conservatism rather than try to become a diluted version of the Democratic Party.

This does not mean Republicans can't come up with creative policy solutions when advisable, but it does mean that conservatism is based on timeless principles that require no major revisions.

Conservatives are champions of freedom, the rule of law and enforcement of the social compact between government and the people enshrined in the Constitution, which imposes limitations on government in order to maximize our liberties.

If we reject these ideas, then we have turned our backs on what America means and what has made America unique. What's the point of winning elections if the price is American exceptionalism?

Limbaugh cautions particularly against the "movement inside the Republican Party to abandon social conservatism."

That is "nothing short of a political death wish," he concludes. "Denying it will not alter the reality."

My view: The current GOP, under Republican establishment leadership, is in a death spiral. It may be a drawn-out death spiral, but it is a death spiral nevertheless.

Unfortunately, this same leadership appears to lack the perspective needed to know it is in the midst of a swirling downward turn. Their pragmatism is divorced from the rules of liberty and therefore is not working -- if the goal of the GOP is to move forward on the basis of Declaration ideals and content.

Should the GOP die (which is not inconsistent with the continuation of a party apparatus), the last person to know the GOP is dead may be House Speaker John Boehner.

It is quite possible he and his team do not know, and may never know, what is hitting every day right between the eyes. This does not mean they are bad people; it suggests, however, they do not understand the present struggle.  

As a matter of prudence, I recommend groups and individuals knowingly committed to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, a) to gameplan how the forces of liberty can rescue the GOP from itself -- with very significant progress in this before the mid-term elections, and then with steady, increasing progress after that; and b) to gameplan, at the same time, in case of the imminent collapse of the GOP, the formation of a new party and new coalition to articulate, defend, and advance to rule of freedom in America -- all of this resting firmly upon the vision for freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence. A house, party, or nation divided cannot stand.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality" 
How the New Resistance Can Win the Culture War

Joseph Farah writes at WND:

I’ve heard some wacky excuses by politicians for changing their minds on some of the most important moral issues facing American, but Ohio Sen. Rob Portman’s rationale for flip-flopping on same-sex marriage takes the proverbial wedding cake.

In case you haven’t heard, his son is a homosexual.

"I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married," Portman wrote in a commentary published Friday in the Columbus Dispatch.

I guess we should all be grateful Rob Portman’s son didn’t choose to become a polygamist or a serial killer.

I have no doubt Rob Portman is sincere in his newfound opinion.

However, that’s all it is -- an opinion.

And opinions don’t determine what is right and what is wrong. Opinions don’t determine what is sinful and what is not sinful. Opinions don’t determine what is truth and what is a lie.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"
Pope Francis on Homo-Sex "Marriage": "A Move of the Father of Lies," "A Total Rejection of God's Law"
Coalition of Black Pastors Targeting Counterfeit Homosex "Marriage"

Billy Hallowell reports at The Blaze:

Controversial faith leader Rob Bell spoke over the weekend at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, Calif., where the former pastor openly endorsed gay marriage. When asked about the controversial issue by The Very Rev. Dr. Jane Shaw, who was moderating the event, he offered up a clear and concise response -- one that will serve as a surprise to many conservative evangelicals.

"Yes, I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love," he said, going on to get more specific. "Whether it’s a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man -- I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs to just -- this is the world we’re living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are."

Bell's relativistic stance represents not just an extremist departure from a Christian mind, but also an extremist departure from a free mind, as he endorses the organized political hatreds of the moment.

"The endgame" of so-called marriage equality "is not to make marriage equally available to all but to make it equally unavailable to all," I write in my latest column, "The Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality'," published at American Thinker and The Pearcey Report. 

Instead of capitulation to ideological passions, which is not compassionate, what is needed is an awareness that the trajectory of "marriage equality" is "'marriage elasticity,' with the ultimate goal of 'marriage extinction'."

The denial of truth spoken in love is inhumane, uncivil, and profoundly un-Christian.

Related
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist" 
Pope Francis on Homo-Sex "Marriage": "A Move of the Father of Lies," "A Total Rejection of God's Law" 
Coalition of Black Pastors Targeting Counterfeit Homosex "Marriage"

You get a "Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality'."

"In the recent State of the Union address, President Obama has said he will commit the United States to a ten-year project to build a comprehensive map of the activity of the brain. He believes that the proposed Brain Activity Map is an economic gold mine,” writes Denyse O’Leary at MercatorNet.com.

But, as John Markoff reports in the New York Times:

Many neuroscientists are skeptical that a multiyear, multibillion dollar effort to unlock the brain’s mysteries will succeed. “I believe the scientific paradigm underlying this mapping project is, at best, out of date and at worst, simply wrong,” said Donald G. Stein, a neurologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. “The search for a road map of stable, neural pathways that can represent brain functions is futile.”

And yet, if the project does succeed, what will the federal government do with the increased power over the human mind?

True enough, if the research succeeds, it might result in better prosthetics or speech technology for paralytics.

But it might also, as Markoff notes, result in better methods of mind control.

As C.S. Lewis warns, power over "nature" often means power over other people, using nature as the means.

Related
Review: "The Magician's Twin -- C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society" 
Dawkins: Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"?

Charles C. Johnson reports at The Daily Caller:

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein made an impassioned call for gun control during a Capitol Hill hearing Thursday, recalling putting her fingers into bullet wounds on the body of slain gay activist Harvey Milk.

But the gun that did the killing -- a .38 special -- doesn’t appear on the list of firearms she wants the federal government to ban.

And Feinstein carried the same model revolver in her purse for nearly four years after the attack. [emphasis added]

"'When you come from where I’ve come from and what you’ve seen, when you found a dead body and put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons,' the California Democrat told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday, after a pointed exchange with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz about the Second Amendment," The Daily Caller reports.

Frank Crimi writes at Frontpage.com:

In the latest act of bruising intolerance being perpetrated by Muslims against Pakistan’s besieged Christian community, a Muslim mob recently burned down over 150 Christian homes and two churches over allegations that a Christian man had committed blasphemy. [emphasis added]

The rioting, which occurred in the Pakistani city of Lahore, began after a Muslim man accused Sawan Masih, a Pakistani Christian, of insulting the Prophet Muhammad, an allegation punishable by death under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

Even though Pakistani police had swiftly arrested Masih, Christian families nevertheless hurriedly fled the area in fear of Muslim reprisals, an exodus which proved fortuitous given the ensuing Muslim rampage.

"Once the mob’s fury had been spent, Christians slowly made their way back to their burned-out homes, leaving one Christian surveying the destruction to lament, 'Nothing is left here. I don't know why this happened'," Crimi writes.

"The answer to that question, unfortunately, is exceedingly clear given the type of barbaric treatment routinely meted out by Muslims to those Christians and other religious minorities unfortunate enough to run afoul of Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws."

Related
Thousands Set Fire to Christian Neighborhood -- Photos
Franklin Graham: Obama "Giving Islam a Pass," Warns of Persecution

Survival instructor Creek Stewart writes at WND:

The general principles of the liberal left agenda exist in the absence of personal responsibility.

They simply will not and cannot admit that people are responsible for their own actions.

If they do, the agenda begins to crumble. The entire foundation rests on completely ignoring personal responsibility and the consequences of one’s own choices.

Related
Gun Control Fallacy
Star Parker: Blacks Who Back Gun Control Need to Study History of Slavery and Jim Crow

Terence P. Jeffrey reports at CNSNews.com:

In 2010, when his native Argentina was considering a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, Pope Francis I, then archbishop of Buenos Aires, said that the legislation was a total rejection of God's law and an effort by the father of lies to confuse and deceive humanity. . . .

"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children," said Cardinal Bergoglio. "At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts."

"Let us not be naive: This is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan," said the future pope. "It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a 'move' of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

Related
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Huge Outcry Against Counterfeit "Gay Marriage" in UK
Coalition of Black Pastors Targeting Counterfeit Homosex "Marriage"

Eric Owens writes at The Daily Caller: 

An art professor at a venerated Christian liberal arts college has covered a life-size statue of Jesus with vacuum dust and is calling it art.

David Hooker, an associate professor at Wheaton College in the suburbs of Chicago, sifted the dust out of massive amounts of vacuumed debris the school’s custodial staff collected for him. He then meticulously smeared it onto a ceramic mannequin of Jesus suffering crucifixion.

The particular Jesus Christ that Hooker covered from head to toe in filth originally came from a Catholic church. He paid $4,000 for it.

"Literally, this dirt contains skin cells from the community. The idea is that our bodies are now connected to the body of Christ,” Hooker is quoted as saying. "At first, some might find it disgusting, or even sacrilegious, but I hope people can get past that and see the meaning behind it."

"If you want a picture of a very suburban, acceptable Jesus, this will not be it," says Jeffrey Greenman, associate dean of biblical and theological studies at Wheaton, according to TheDC.

Related
Angelina Jolie as the Virgin Mary
Camille Paglia: Art World in Crisis -- Because It's "Sneering at Religion"

A press release from Liberty Counsel states:

Pornography & sexual promiscuity are destroying a generation of young people.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is reporting that from 2009 to 2012 over 5,000 sexual assaults in England involved a child perpetrator raping or sexually assaulting another child.

Of the cases reported, 98 percent of the perpetrators were boys, 20 percent of the victims were a family member, and one third of the victims were a family friend.

From the youngest age, children mimic what they see. If they see sex acts, many children naturally practice these life changing acts on vulnerable infants and children nearby.

"The offending children are ordinarily not aiming to do harm but rather to act 'grown up' as they practice the fascinating, toxic stimuli adult society has coldheartedly loosed into their developmental environment," said Judith Reisman visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.

"We are allowing the cannibalization of our children," said Reisman. “Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that pornographic visual images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail. And once new neurochemical pathways are established, they are difficult or impossible to delete," Reisman said.

"Pornographic images also cause secretion of the body’s 'fight or flight' sex hormones. This triggers excitatory transmitters and produces non-rational, involuntary reactions. Media erotic fantasies become deeply imbedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating, and addicting many of those exposed.

"This scientifically documented, neurochemical imprinting affects children and teens especially deeply; their still-developing brains process emotions differently, with significantly less rationality and cognition than the adult brain," Reisman continued.

  "The mainstreaming of pornography since the 1950s directly coincides with the unprecedented explosion in sexual disease and a huge, exponential increase in new types of pornographic copycat sex crimes by and to juveniles and adults. Such facts should inform the legal arguments about free speech versus pornography in public and even private venues," Reisman concluded.

Related
Legal Prostitution a Dutch Disaster
Sex Therapists Want to Legalize "Virtual" Child Porn
Male Homosexual "Partners" Face Child Porn Charges

So writes Paul Joseph Watson in a column titled, "Most Americans See Government as 'Threat to Rights' For First Time," published at Infowars.

Related
Brennan Takes Oath on Draft Constitution -- Without Bill of Rights 
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers 
West Point Warns . . . About "Civil Activism, Individual Freedoms, and Self-Gov't"!

Penny Starr reports at CNSNews.com:

The U.S. State Department's policy on dealing with transgendered people will allow Americans who are anatomically male but identify themselves as female to secure U.S. passports that match their gender "identity" rather than their anatomy.

But what if, O gods of State, an individual should feel simultaneously male and female? What oppression these simultransgendered pioneers must feel.

Welcome to Insanefrancisco, ladies and gentlemen, dogs and cats. Don't forget to leave that thing called a body at the door. Your intelligence, too.

Related
Massachusetts Forces Schools to Let "Transgender" Boys Use Girls' Restrooms, Lockers 
Don't Worry, Ladies, It Was a Transgender Spy Cam 
The "Gay" Anti-Science

Ben Shapiro writes: 

Back on February 16, Saturday Night Live -- a show that would never have the guts to lampoon Muslim prophet Mohammed -- went after Jesus with both barrels. Or rather, they had Jesus go after everyone else with both barrels. The skit, titled Djesus Uncrossed, featured Christoph Waltz’s Jesus killing Roman soldiers using swords and firearms. "He’s risen from the dead," the voice-over says. "And he’s preaching anything but forgiveness."

In the aftermath of that slap against Christianity, Tim Wildmon’s American Family Association went to sponsors of the program and asked them to pull their advertising. The skit, Wildmon wrote, was "an affront to all people of faith, especially Christians . . . NBC would never do this to any other religious group, but it’s popular in Hollywood circles to go after 'crazy' Christians."

"Sears sent Wildmon a thank you, and pulled its ads, stating that they had also “taken steps to ensure that our commercials do not air online," Shapiro writes.

Meanwhile, Shapiro continues, "Wildmon is pushing more boycotts, stating, 'As long as corporations support this kind of offensive material, their sales are going to suffer as shoppers abandon retailers that support blasphemy. . . . When you embrace television programming with no morals, you can’t possibly embrace the public you are trying to sell to'."

Related
Nordstrom Decides to Stomp on Marriage
What I Saw at Chick-Fil-A Today

Talia Ralph reports at GlobalPost:

The Christian neighborhood of Joseph Colony in Lahore, Pakistan was attacked on Saturday after a Christian sanitation worker allegedly blasphemed the Prophet Mohammed.

Several thousand people armed with batons and pistols set fire to houses and churches on Saturday morning, according to the New York Times.

178 houses, 18 shops and 2 churches were damaged by fires, the Times reported.

Several policemen were hurt as they tried to intervene.

The attackers "vandalized Christians' houses, desecrated churches and opened fire on the police," according to a police spokesman named Multan Khan, reports GlobalPost report.

Update: Here are 3 photos -- photo, photo, photo.

Related
Franklin Graham: Obama "Giving Islam a Pass," Warns of Persecution

The New Atheists say the death of God is good for humanity, but Damon Linker at The Week (UK) disagrees. He writes: 

If atheism is true, it is far from being good news.

Learning that we're alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free -- all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.

Honest atheists understand this. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, but he called it an "awe-inspiring catastrophe" for humanity, which now faced the monumental task of avoiding a descent into nihilism. Essayist Albert Camus likewise recognized that when the longing for a satisfying answer to the question of "why?" confronts the "unreasonable silence of the world," the goodness of human life appears to dissolve and must be reconstructed from the ground up.

Atheists often accuse Christians of covering up harsh truths with sappy sentimentalism. But Link argues that New Atheists are the ones covering up when they claim atheism makes us free and happy.

"It's one thing to catalogue the manifest faults within this or that religious tradition, which the new atheists have ably done . . . over and over and over again," Linker writes.

"It's quite another to claim, as these authors also invariably do, that godlessness is not only true but also unambiguously good for human beings," Linker protests. "It quite obviously is not. . . . Honesty requires more than sentimental, superficial happy talk."

Hat Tip: Chris Hodgson

Related   
"Godless Watch" Pleased With Praying Obama
From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader
Atheism+: The New New Atheists

Taylor Rose reports at WND:

TheTeaParty.net today released the results of an independent poll of Americans showing that by a 2-1 margin citizens prefer the "limited government" of the tea party to the "big government" of the progressives.

The poll showed 48 percent of Americans support tea party principles of "free markets" and "personal responsibility" to only 21-percent support for "higher taxes," "more spending" and "progressive, liberal principles."

The organization said the poll was done by independent polling firm NSON Inc. with 500 live responses and a margin of error of 4.38 percent.

These poll results show "we're stronger than ever," WND quotes Bob Adams, who represents TheTeaParty.net on Capitol Hill.

The numbers also show the "tea party is still here and still engaged and greater than before," Adams is quote as saying. 

According to WND, Adams also "noted the filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., this week in the U.S. Senate over Obama administration statements the president has the authority to order a lethal drone strike on U.S. residents on American soil. Adams said it was 'instructive' of the influence of the tea party that Paul 'was able to get [Attorney General Eric Holder] to answer him and cave'."

Related
Mr. Paul Goes to Washington
Old Guard GOP in Lock-Step With Obama Regime

Lisa Barron reports at Newsmax:

"Our party needs something new, fresh, and different,” Paul, R-Ky., told Politico. "What we’ve been running -- nothing against the candidates necessarily -- but we have a good, solid niche in all the solidly red states throughout the middle of the country.”

Paul, a self-described libertarian who ran for the Senate in 2010 with backing from the tea party, suggested in the interview with Politico that the GOP should do more to broaden its support base. 

In the Politico interview, Paul also attempted to distinguish himself from his staunchly libertarian father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for the GOP nomination last year.

"The younger Paul said he thinks there is a middle ground between 'pure libertarianism' and more traditional conservatism, and there is a role for someone with that position who 'can somehow bring about an expansion of the party'," Newsmax reports.

Related
DLimbaugh: Let's Build on Paul Filibuster
Rand Paul: "I'm Against Having a King"

Swearing to uphold a draft of the Constitution that does not include the Bill of Rights "is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted," notes Olivier Knox at Yahoo! News.

Blogger "Emptywheel" writes that Brennan "was swearing on [a draft] that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments -- or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, 4 years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on."

Hat Tip: Drudge 

Related
Court Rules: Obama's Unconstitutional Abuse of Power 
West Point Warns . . . About "Civil Activism, Individual Freedoms, and Self-Gov't"!

Elizabeth Harrington reports at CNSNews.com:

The number of Americans designated as "not in the labor force" in February was 89,304,000, a record high, up from 89,008,000 in January, according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February.

David Limbaugh writes in his latest column;

The Republicans had better not squander the good will Sen. Rand Paul purchased for them in his filibuster over the Obama administration’s potential use of armed drones to kill non-enemy combatants in America.

I am not simply referring to the constitutional issue of whether the president can engage in such acts, though that’s very important. I believe the significance of Paul’s filibuster transcends the drone issue.

"It was about challenging the administration’s lawlessness and accountability across the board and his runaway spending and statism," Limbaugh writes. "It was about championing freedom, God-given rights, and the Constitution."

Join best-selling author and professor Nancy Pearcey for a "full year (two semesters) of intensive study in worldview apologetics to ground students in the knowledge and skills needed to think critically about secular worldviews and apply a liberating Christian perspective in their studies, their professions, and across the whole of life," announces the Francis Schaeffer Center for Worldview and Culture at Houston Baptist University.

Out of the Box, Into the World: In the Fall 2013, students can take "Worldview Apologetics: 'Testing Everything' with C.S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer."

Hello Campus, Good-Bye God: In the Spring 2014, students can take "Worldview Apologetics: Surviving and Thriving at the University."

For contact information and course descriptions, read the Francis Schaeffer Center announcement here.

From Instant Analysis:

A new study comparing same-sex couples to married heterosexuals shows that the former are less healthy than the latter.

Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, tells American Family News the latest numbers were published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. It found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61 percent more likely to report "poor or fair heallth"than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Likewise, same-sex cohabiting women were 46 percent more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women."

"LifeSiteNews explains that these results held after controlling the socioeconomic status of the 1,659 same-sex couples reporting,"  according to Instant Analysis.

Related
Imposing Extremism: School Kids to Drink "Gay" Power Kool-Aid
Coulter on "Faggot" Easy to Defend

The bad news is: Human Events, the Capitol Hill newspaper where my husband Rick used to be managing editor, is going out of print.

The good  news is: It will remain online, and you can still read several of my articles in HE here. Unfortunately, the online version does not go back far enough to include Rick's articles in HE, some of which can be read here.

In October 2005, Human Events noted the launching of The Pearcey Report:

Last week marked the launch of the Pearcey Report, a website of news, commentary, information and worldview. It can be viewed online at www.PearceyReport.com.

Created by former HUMAN EVENTS Managing Editor J. Richard Pearcey, who serves as its editor and publisher, the website offers breaking stories from around the world -- in politics, international affairs, the arts, science, health, books, film, people, the odd tidbit and more.

Pearcey has worked as a journalist, writer and editor in the Washington, D.C., area since the late 1980s. His wife, best-selling author Nancy Pearcey, is editor-at-large. Her most recent book is Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity.

Related
Gizzi in the 3rd Row 
Journalists Who Don't Kiss Obama's Feet

Joseph Farah argues there is nothing conservative about "advocating for same-sex marriage."

Related
Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers
FYI, Free-Thinkers: 1st Counterfeit "Marriage" at West Point Chapel
Coalition of Black Pastors Targeting Counterfeit Homosex "Marriage"
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"

The UK Guardian takes on the New Atheists in an article with a provocative title, "It's a Big Fat Myth That All Scientists Are Religion-Hating Atheists."

Sylvia McLain writes:

Reinforcing the scientist = atheist stereotype, whether you are for it or against it, necessarily excludes people.  No one should be excluded from science if they want to do it, be excited about it or read about it. . . . 

The cartoon stereotype that all scientists are religion-hating atheists isn't just annoying; it is harmful. It is divisive and does nothing to encourage people into scientific discovery.

In fact, it reinforces the idea that only a certain type of person can do science. This is not true. Professional science has enough diversity problems as it is, with women and minorities still grossly under-represented, without throwing religious-typing in there too.

Public scientists and critics alike need to take a bit more care in lumping all scientists into the same stereotypical category. The world is much more complex than that.

Related
Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper
Texas Chooses Science Over Secularist Dogma
Astronomer Alleges Religious Discrimination at University of Kentucky

That's Piers Morgan's complaint. And he should not receive death threats.

But Mr. Morgan needs to awaken from dogmatic slumber: Gun control itself is a death threat -- and a rape threat. And a tyranny threat.

And it's a death threat not on the one, but on the many.

Wake up, Mr. Morgan. Wake up.

Hat Tip: Drudge

Related
Gun Control Fallacy 
Star Parker: Blacks Who Back Gun Control Need to Study History of Slavery and Jim Crow

Walid Phares posts at Facebook:

In an interview on BBC TVB Arabic, Jamila Ismael, the rising female leader of Egypt's opposition said, "We met Secretary John Kerry and told him we reject Washington's imposition of the Muslim Brotherhood on us. We told him our people deserves better than the Islamists."

The female leader said civil society in Egypt rejects Washignton's pressure to submit to the Ikhwan [Brotherhood] rule. "Treat us like you treat Americans, we want equality between men and women, full rights to minorities. The Brotherhood you support wants to crush freedoms. Why do you talk about change in your elections and support the forces that obstruct change in Egypt."

Observers in Washington said Ismael and other liberal leaders in Egypt are now in a position to embarrass those who in the US claim they are liberal, but when it comes to Egypt and the Arab world, side with the fundamentalists, against women and minorities.

Related
Big Brotherhood: Egypt's Morsi Takes Dictatorial Powers
Pelosi Holds Secret Fundraiser With Islamists, Hamas-Linked Groups

". . . For service on the streets of the United States," reports Modern Survival blog.

"This is getting a little creepy," writes Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit.

Hat Tip: Drudge

Related
"If Things Are So Peachy" in America, Mr. Obama, Why the "Black Hawks, Tanks, and Loads of Ammo?" 
Mark Levin: Obama Administration Preparing for Societal Collapse by Buying Vast Amounts of Ammo -- Audio

In an article titled, "B---h-, C--t: Reporters Open Up About Abuse and Obscenities From Obama Spokespeople," Mytheos Holt writes at The Blaze:

Bob Woodward’s alleged “threat” from the White House has touched off a storm of conservative support for the Washington Post editor, and has forced the Obama administration onto the defense. It also may have opened up a floodgate of information -- information that suggests that, even if Woodward himself was not threatened or abused, other less venerable reporters have faced such treatment.

Related
Mark Steyn: Obama Is Crushing the Media Just Like the Soviet Union Did 
With Obama's Axelrod at NBC, Political Operators Become the President's Press

Terence P. Jeffrey reports at CNSNews.com:

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

To support its argument, the Obama administration cites "a 'policy statement' by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be 'superior' to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households," reports CNSNews.

Comment: Once again, the extremism of Mr. Obama and his radical regime expresses itself. In this case he discriminates against the Creator and the the Creator's norms for the healthy human family.

This discrimination will be baited and sold as "fairness" and "equality," but it is utterly unfair and an equality of cruelty. For it expresses hatred against what is best for children who are created to survive and thrive in real marriages and not in counterfeit "families" of two moms or three dads, depending upon the latest "scientific" social construct created on demand in the basement of the White House. 

Rather than subject children to state-imposed homosexualist intolerance against the human family -- created to express the diversity of male and female within the liberating unity of married life -- these know-nothing radicals would deny that children are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

Needless to say, nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution legitimizes or authorizes Mr. Obama and his authoritarian disciples to seek to impose, by judicial fiat, their private value systems and belief constructs upon real children who need real families.

This kind of radicalism against the mainstream of the rules of freedom and the human community as centered on the Creator and not the state -- nor on the feelings of the Democrat Party -- ought to be rejected out of hand and exposed for extremism for which it stands. Children need moms, not tyrants. Make love, not hate.

Related Adoption
Adoption Institute Report Written by Pro-Homosexual Advocate
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman 
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"

Awstats reports that The Pearcey Report enjoyed more than 239,000 page views in February. We thank you for your readership and feedback!