J.C. Penney stock crashes with news of ‘gay marriage’ support
avatar

Some polls have indicated that there is a rise in support for “gay marriage” in America, but I have taken the polls with a huge grain of salt. It appears that practically speaking, “gay marriage” is not quite as popular as the pollsters say it is. J.C. Penney appears to be suffering harsh consequences for their support of “gay marriage.”

From American Family Association:

Simply put, people are not shopping at J.C. Penney. AFA and OneMillionMoms are showing success in the effort to educate people to Penney’s aggressive national campaign to promote “gay” marriage.

The company is going downhill fast. Since February, the company stock has lost more than half its value, and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its credit rating on J.C. Penney Co. further into “junk” status.

It’s “junk” to me in that I wouldn’t shop there. Apparently, many others agree it’s “junk” and aren’t shopping there, either.

Read the whole thing….and do spread the word. This sort of thing isn’t reported in the “mainstream” news coming out of New York City.

Oh, and, from now on, I’m going to try to remember to make it a point to put all posts on this issue in the “Mental Illness” category, because same-sex attraction is objectively disordered. I have mental illness myself so calling me a “bigot” for doing that simply will not work with  me.

The Evil Left: Holder v Humanitarian Law Project and Chick-Fil-A
avatar

The Left is having an anti-Christian hissy fit because Chick-Fil-A’s president is a Christian who donates money to the cause of preserving traditional marriage. As I recall, however, the Left supports the idea of giving support to foreign terrorist organizations. Remember the case of Holder v Humanitarian Law Project? Yes, let’s reminisce with an article about that Supreme Court decision at the New York Times.

In a case pitting free speech against national security, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.

See that? Okay, so, who ARE the people who think it’s okay to support foreign terrorist organizations? The Left.

While the Obama Administration had to argue against Humanitarian Law Project, and the attorney who made the case was Elena Kagan,  who is now a Supreme Court Justice, the case was definitely a Left vs Right case wherein the Right came down on the side of the Patriot Act, which barred such support, and the Left came down on the side of Humanitarian Law Project which was giving support to foreign terrorist organizations. The justices who dissented (favoring Humanitarian Law Project) were liberal justices: Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Here’s some background on Humanitarian Law Project:

Viewing the United States as the world’s principal agent of international strife, HLP identifies American disarmament as one of its chief objectives. In July 2003, in testimony before a UN Commission on Human Rights subcommittee, Karen Parker claimed that the fate of the entire world depended upon the “true disarmament” of the U.S. “The smaller, poorer countries cannot possibly keep up with ‘arm-chair’ wars or they will bankrupt themselves,” she said. “Even the other developed countries are far, far behind this technological madness. If the United States is allowed to use and develop these weapons, all other countries are reduced to peonage at the mercy of the United States.”

This from the same group that provided support to foreign terrorist organizations:

In January 2004, HLP scored a legal victory it had long been seeking when a Los Angeles Federal District Court judge struck down parts of the Patriot Act. At issue, in particular, was the provision in the Act which barred American groups like HLP from providing advice and non-military aid to known terrorist organizations. This restriction was challenged on HLP’s behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights. HLP claimed that it wished to provide support for “only the lawful activities” of two organizations designated as terrorist entities by the U.S. government: (a) the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, responsible for over 200 suicide bombings and the assassinations in the early 1990s of the prime ministers of India and Sri Lanka; and (b) the Kurdistan Workers Party, a Syrian-backed, Marxist, Kurdish nationalist organization that sought to establish an independent state in southeast Turkey in the 1980s and ’90s, and engaged in the massacre of civilian villages where its dogma was opposed, leaving an estimated 30,000 dead.

So, when you hear the Left screaming about Chick-Fil-A donating to the cause of traditional marriage, and their threatening to deny business licenses to Chick-Fil-A franchises, remember the Humanitarian Law Project and whose side three liberal justices were on. Who else sided with Humanitarian Law Project? Click here to see the amicus briefs filed on their behalf.

Here’s a partial list, and they are all decidedly on the Left side of the political spectrum. :

Get the picture?

I understand that most people out there in America who are speaking out against Chick-Fil-A due to the political causes the president of that business supports are not exactly terrorist-supporting radicals. One might call them “useful idiots.” It’s an unfortunate term, but accurate in that this is precisely the term used for people who advance a cause they do not fully understand.

There are two teams in American politics today. The Right and the Left. If you are on the side of the Left in their aspirations, you are working against freedom and against your country. It is certain that you won’t get everything you want for America if you support the Right, but if you support the Left, America and our freedoms are in grave danger.

I hope and pray you will wake up.

Top Ten Anti-Christian Hate Tweets About Chick-Fil-A
avatar

So, the backlash against Chick-Fil-A isn’t anti-Christian? Think again. Here are ten anti-Christian tweets in the context of the decision by some Democrats that Chick-Fil-A should not get a business license.

 

 

This one below was tweeted in reply to Rick Santorum’s tweet in support of Ted Cruz which is completely unrelated to the Chick-Fil-A story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Gay rights” activists aren’t really anti-Christian? Think again.

To be “homophobic” is to be on the path to sainthood. That’s one of the most important things Christians can learn today. If you are involved in political discussion with “gay rights” activists and you’re not being called “homophobic,” you’re probably doing it wrong. “Homophobic” is the new “N” word for Christians. It’s bullying on the same level as referring to blacks with the “N” word.

Tweets below show people referring to Chick-Fil-A as “homophobic” which in my estimation proves in and of itself that it is a Christian business.

And now the proof that all of this is political and NOT about “rights” for anyone, “gay” or otherwise. In 2008, Barack Obama said “for me as a Christian” marriage is “between a man and a woman” and is “a sacred union.” He said, “God is in the mix.” THERE WAS NOT EVEN A WHIMPER from these people now attacking Chick-Fil-A. THEY SUPPORTED OBAMA for president. All of this is an anti-Christian political agenda NOT RELATED to “rights” for anyone. They want to use Christians (as Obama did in 2008) and abuse Christians (as they are doing now against Chick-Fil-A.)

Funny how they like to call Christians “hypocrites” so often, huh?

Beyond the Borderline Personality
avatar

Stuart has linked a blog called Beyond the Borderline Personality by blogger Haven.

(Yes, Stuart’s blog is the only blog I consistently read almost every single day. Sue me. No, wait. Don’t sue me.)

I’m writing on this mainly because people like to “diagnose” me online, for some reason. Maybe they think if they challenge my diagnoses they’ll win a battle over me or something. I have no idea. Anyway, BPD is one of the “diagnoses” angry people have flung at me before. I thought I’d go over some of what Haven has written.

She offers a quote:

“You know you’re borderline when you’ve spent so much time acting normal, other’s say ‘you’re cured’ so you show them you’re not.”

Haven responds to that:

This is me. This is the plight of the Quiet Borderline. This is why it’s so hard for us to ask for help, and to get help, because so often when we do finally attempt to shed that mask, people look at us and say… But you’re so normal, I think you’re fine.

One of my diagnoses is Asperger Syndrome. I wonder how people might confuse Asperger with this “mask” part of BPD because of the fact that Aspies have to learn how to behave based on observations of how other people are acting. It has been something of a torture for me to learn which behaviors are expected of me because I have mind blindness. I always feel that I am behind a wall, on some level, because of that. It is not a “mask” that I put on. It’s a wall that God put into my head.

 I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve run into this. xRoommate told me she didn’t think I was Borderline. Current Roommate (who is also a Psych major) has told me she would never guess I was Borderline. I think this is a two part problem.

Haven is accomplished at wearing a mask, I suppose.

The stigma surrounding BPD focuses so strongly on the angry, volatile, aggressive, explosive cases of BPD, that it’s become stereotyped to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary.

So it is with all mental illnesses. This is why doctors have to do the diagnoses, not your blog readers and not your family and not your friends. Doctors.

To the outside world I do not rage. I do not show how quickly my moods can change. I hold it inside until I’m alone and can let the façade slip.

One of my diagnoses is Bipolar Disorder. I could probably name at least 100 people who have seen me rage publicly. The ability to put up a facade isn’t something I have during an episode. Certainly, I will do my best to keep myself quiet during an episode, and certainly I am able to control to a certain point, but sometimes, no. There is zero control.

“Acting normal”, not letting people see my emotional instability, not letting people see things that would make them question whether I have it together, is vitally important.

It’s important to me, too. It’s just not always possible for me.

I learned growing up and from the abusive relationships that I’ve been in, that anything “abnormal” mentally and emotionally is something to be ashamed of and can be used against me to humiliate me and alienate me from the people I need in my life. How can someone love you if you’re broken? So I hide it.

I didn’t ever know that kind of pressure. I have two brothers in nursing homes due to brain injuries. One was injured in 1979 and the other in 1992. I have several family members with Bipolar Disorder. My family has always known about mental issues and that it is nothing to be ashamed of. It was in that environment that I learned about dignity and that we love those most who are broken.

Until it’s too much to hold inside. Until I’ve finally, finally reached a point where I need to reach out for help. When I’m literally dizzy and shaking from the anxiety, depression, rage, and pain I’m feeling and can’t keep going on my own anymore. When I finally cede that I need to try, I hear… But you seem so normal. You’ll be fine.

That part I understand deeply. Trying to maintain control, I never really know what I look like to other people. I have been suicidal before and people told me I seemed fine. I know what that feeling is like. Then there are those who would call the police and tell them I’m suicidal when I am not. That’s extremely annoying to both me and the police.

Invalidation. Of course I seem normal, because that’s all I’ve let you see! You don’t see what’s happening inside because I’m positive you won’t be able to deal with it and won’t like me anymore. Not to mention I feel guilty bringing my problems to you even this one time, let alone all the times when things feel like they’re too much for me to handle, so I bury them so you won’t be burdened with how much I’m hurting. Of course you don’t see all that is inside of me.

That must be torture.

Read the whole article. And remember, don’t try to diagnose people unless you are a doctor trained to diagnose mental disorder and the patient has physically come into your office and talked to you. You’re only making things worse otherwise.

Consoling People in Their Sins and Ignorance?
avatar

Stuart posted this, and Brandon Vogt called it the “Best. Parish. Bulletin. Ever.”

I’m pretty sure I’m going to sound like the Wicked Witch of the West to some people when I say this but that looks an awful lot like consoling people in their sins and ignorance to me. If people are coming to Mass because it’s about “them” instead of about Jesus, and if they are not ashamed of things like that they “blew all the offering money at the dog track,” and if they have to be told that they should not be ashamed of something like that or else they won’t come to Mass, then they are there for the wrong reasons.

People should be ashamed of their sins. And they should know that the Mass is not about them. It’s about God and making His will our own.

If that makes me the Wicked Witch, in some people’s eyes, so be it. I can tell you that I am a convert to Catholicism, and I converted not because people were consoling me in my sins but rather because I knew I should be ashamed of them and I wanted to seek God and His will for me. The first time I attended Mass, there was no one greeting me at the door “welcoming” me AND I WAS GRATEFUL FOR THAT because it wasn’t about me. It was about God. That facilitated my conversion.

This is going into the “Identity” category because making the Eucharist the focus of the Mass, and consoling Christ in His Agony instead of consoling disorder and sin and ignorance, is an identity issue.

 

The Actual Definition of ‘Homophobic’: Does It Describe You?
avatar

I notice that Boing Boing is calling Chick-Fil-A “homophobic” today while exhibiting what appears to be an irrational fear of Christian teenage girls by linking to this. So, what exactly does “homophobic” mean? And does it describe you?

From Dictionary.com:

homophobia — unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals  and homosexuality.

Antipathy is “a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.”

So, if you have a natural aversion to homosexuality, then you fit under the definition of “homophobic.” I’d say that covers just about everyone who is not homosexual. If you are not averse to committing a homosexual act, then you’re not “homophobic,” technically speaking. Otherwise, you’re “homophobic.”

There is something very important that everyone needs to understand on this issue. Aversion to homosexuality is important for one to become a saint and it is the duty of every Catholic to become a saint. This is why the “gay rights” movement — as expressed in their dogged unwillingness to keep their sexual preferences private — and the Catholic Church will ever be at odds. One must be “homophobic” (as defined in the dictionary) to be a saint.

So, to my fellow Catholics, I say this. When they say you are “homophobic” then rejoice and be glad that you are that much more on the path to sainthood.

TAFEG releases website and video on Justice David Medina
avatar

For my readers in Texas, this is from the lovely Alice Linahan at Voices Empower:

Texas Alliance For Ethical Government releases website and video at Runaway Grand Jury.Org exposing cronyism in dismissal of Justice Medina’s grand jury indictment on arson related charges

Texas Supreme Court Justice Place 4 race heats up as grand jurors reveal the truth and seek to defend their integrity 

Click here for the video at Runaway Grand Jury.

Click here for the full press release.