Court Rules Against Christ
We've already been told that we don't have the right to act on the belief that God defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Now the courts in Great Britain have taken the next logical step. "Two street preachers have been convicted of a public order offence after a public prosecutor claimed that publicly quoting parts of the King James Bible in modern Britain should 'be considered to be abusive and is a criminal matter.'" (Emphasis in the original.) That's right. Even though Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me", it is deemed a crime to agree with Him. Prosecutor Jackson argued, "To say to someone that Jesus is the only God is not a matter of truth. To the extent that they are saying that the only way to God is through Jesus, that cannot be a truth." Thank you, Magistrates. It is illegal and deemed hate speech to agree with Scripture on these things.
Our Supreme Court was happy to rule against God on the subject of marriage. Our federal court system was pleased to rule against the free exercise of religion. I don't see the ruling from the UK as far away from coming soon to a United States court near you.
Who'd Have Thought?
March 8 was deemed "International Women's Day". In conjunction (and ironically) it was also A Day Without a Woman in which we are asked to consider, "What would happen in a world where women didn't exist?" Seriously? What would happen? Nothing. Nothing at all. No people. Nowhere. End of story.
The protest was coordinated by the same people that brought us the "Women's March" in January. You know ... the one that refused to include women who agreed with them on every issue except abortion. As it turns out, fundamental to women's rights is the right to murder your unborn child. (It's classified as a "Unity Principle".) As always, all women are created equal; it's just that some are more equal than others.
Oh No, Not Again
I'm sure you've heard the news. Here, let me just lay down the headline from the New York Times. "Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones." I'm sure you've heard all about that. And more sniggering, guffawing, or outright righteous indignation pours forth from anti-Trump forces because he's a loon and everyone knows it. Never happened, Mr. President. Get a grip.
So why is it that everyone including the New York Times is offering this "lack of evidence" story forgetting entirely that news outlets including the New York Times said precisely that the government had been intercepting communications between Trump and Russia? This seems to be going something like this. The New York Times claims, "The government has been listening in on Trump's communications." Trump says, "I've just learned that the government has been listening in on my communications!" The New York Times says, "Don't be ridiculous; there's no evidence of that." Or ... is Trump right ... again?
Did the Apple Land Near the Tree?
First, there was this "March 4 Trump" where citizens who, you know, like Trump expressed their support. It did not end well. The rally turned violent in a clash with Trump-haters. (Is it right to classify their view of Trump as "hate"?) Well, as it turns out, one of those arrested for starting the fight was Linwood Kaine, son of Senator Tim Kaine, the former Democratic candidate for Vice President. Now, any parent can have a "kid gone wrong" event and we need to be sensitive to that ... except that the senator's response was, "We love that our three children have their own views and concerns about current political issues. They fully understand the responsibility to express those concerns peacefully." Um ... apparently not.
Who is Right and Whose Rights?
Apparently a group of openly homosexual veterans have not been included in Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade. (Note: St. Patrick's Day Parade, as in "Roman Catholic event".) Apparently including them "would conflict with the parade organizers' Roman Catholic heritage." On the other hand, they are "reigniting a fight over cultural inclusion." Because "homosexual behavior" has transformed into "gay" as a state of being (which cannot actually be defined as such because apparently people go in and out of it all the time) and now into "a culture". The mayor is outraged. "I will not tolerate discrimination in our city of any form. We are one Boston, which means we are a fully inclusive city." That's the "fully inclusive city" that banned Chick-Fil-A from opening stores there because the owner believed homosexual behavior was a sin. Not actually fully inclusive. Just absolutely inclusive of a not-culture of not-gays who wish to be there in the face of the Roman Catholics about whom the event is centered.