Thursday, January 19, 2006

Homosexual activists insist that the Black Church accept them


Tonight begins an all out effort by homosexual activists to get Black churches to be more accepting of homosexuals in their congregation. Al Sharpton and Bishop Yvette Flunder of San Francisco will be hosting a meeting in Atlanta between Black pastors and Black homosexual activist.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting:

The gathering, at the First Iconium Baptist Church near downtown Atlanta, will feature films, discussions on acceptance and a look at how homophobia in churches is promoting the "down-low" phenomenon -- men having sex with other men while maintaining a heterosexual identity.

In San Francisco, a city known for its acceptance of gay and lesbian people, a coalition of African American pastors condemned same-sex marriage during the 2004 presidential election. They said it would advance the decline of marriage and family values in the African American community. That sentiment is shared in a number of churches across the country by clergy of all races.

I wonder if it ever occurred to author of this piece that the reason these pastors opposed same-sex marriage had nothing to do with the presidential election? Their vocal opposition was prompted by the fact that San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom violated California law and the will of the voters by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And thus, these pastors were morally obligated to speak out against this action which would have given government sanction to a lifestyle that, according to their faith is a sin.

It is so disheartening because African Americans have had strong social connections to their churches but have not been allowed to talk about AIDS or homosexuality, and (gays) are publicly ostracized by their ministers," said Keith Boykin, president of the coalition and author of the book "Beyond the Down Low." "It is especially profound for black folks because the church has been a place of refuge, to get salvation and redemption, not condemnation."

What Mr. Boykin doesn’t get is that you cannot obtain salvation or redemption when you knowingly defy the word and the will of God. Just as I cannot knowingly live my life as a thief in direct contradiction to God’s word “Thou shalt not steal.”

Whether one looks in the Old Testament or the New Testament, God calls homosexuality an abomination. Furthermore, he lumps it in with other sexual sins such as adultery and fornication … No better and no worse. Thus, just as a pastor would be remiss in giving his blessing to congregants to practice these sinful behaviors, he/she would be equally remiss in allowing them to live the homosexual lifestyle without advising them that it would be in direct contradiction to God’s word.

"Almost everyone I know who is black and gay has an issue rooted in the church. It is so pervasive; it is part of our culture and our community. Black gay men go to church and have ministers condemning them, beating up on them every week."

So why do they keep going to that church? It is because they really do want salvation and acceptance. But they want it on their own terms, not God’s. And rather than finding a faith that supports their lifestyle, they would rather force Christian churches to undermine their scriptural teachings.

The church plays more than a religious role in most black communities, serving as a social gathering place and often dictating the politics of its parishioners.

Activists say anti-gay sentiment grew in 2004 because white conservative Christian groups rallied black ministers against gay marriage. Many believe this bond between white evangelicals and black pastors helped President Bush get 11 percent of the African American vote that year.

"The Karl Roves of the world wrote an agenda on how to mobilize the African American vote, and part of that was to suggest the vote against same-gender marriage," Flunder said, referring to Bush's top political adviser.

First of all, the first function of the church is spiritual; not social, not political or financial. And anything the church does in these other areas must also promote the spiritual wellbeing of church members. It was not Karl Rove who mobilized Black Pastors. It was those on the left and those in the homosexual community who sought to force their moral values on the rest of society. Much like the Boykin and Flunder are trying to do.

Having said all of the above, I will agree with Boykin and Flunder on one thing. We (the church) do need to discuss these issues, because they do impact our brothers and sisters. And we need to do so with the understanding that none us are perfect. The Bible says, “All have fallen and come short of the glory of God.” We ought not let the social stigma of one sin (in this case homosexuality) lead us into thinking that our shortcomings are any better or any worse. But in love, we MUST address the impact that HIV/AIDS is having in our community.

It is so disheartening because African Americans have had strong social connections to their churches but have not been allowed to talk about AIDS or homosexuality, and (gays) are publicly ostracized by their ministers,"

However, unlike Boykin and Flunder, I believe that such a discussion would be incomplete without also including the truth about the dangers of sexual promiscuity, drug use and yes…living the homosexual lifestyle.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

California Republican Assembly Members Urge UC to Divest from Sudan


A group of students called the UC Sudan Divestment Taskforce contacted the office of California Assemblyman Tim Leslie in an effort to get legislative support from Assemblyman Leslie, who happens to be the Vice-Chairman of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Not only did the assemblyman write a letter in support of their effort, but he also got the majority of the Assembly Republican Caucus to sign onto the letter as well.

These students were pleasantly surprised that Republicans would be so supportive of their efforts. We let them know that California Assembly Republicans have been trying to get the state to divest from Sudan for years only to have many of their efforts thwarted by Democrats, because it wasn't their idea.

Leslie's office sent out the following press release this afternoon.

ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN’S ASK UC TO DIVEST FROM SUDAN

(SACRAMENTO) – Assembly Republicans, led by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City) are encouraging the UC Regents to adopt an investment policy which includes a policy of substantive divestment from Sudan. The UC Board of Regents will be meeting tomorrow (Thursday, January 19th) to decide whether or not to adopt such a policy.

“What is taking place in Darfur, Sudan is nothing short of government sponsored genocide!” declared Leslie, who serves as Vice-Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, “By divesting from the Sudan, we are sending a clear message that California will not tolerate the cruel practices of this oppressive government.

This is not a new position for California legislative Republicans. Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta) has for years advocated for divestment from the Sudan. “It is simply the right thing to do”, he exclaims, “Genocide and religious tyranny cannot be ignored, let alone condoned.”

In a letter signed by 14 Republican Assembly members, they point out to the UC Regents that over 400,000 Darfurians have been murdered, over 2.5 million have been displaced, and nearly 70% of Darfur’s villages have been razed. Their letter goes on to state, “The government’s systematic policies of rape and denial of humanitarian aid serve as gruesomely effective adjunct tools in this genocidal campaign.”

Back in November 2005 the UC’s Committee on Investments voted unanimously to recommend that the Full Board of Regents adopt an investment policy which would include substantive divestment from the Sudan. Assembly Republicans are confident that the UC Regents full board will follow suit.

Leslie Added, “California’s movement on this issue is paramount to raising broader awareness to the atrocities occurring in this country. It is imperative that the UC take the appropriate action and vote for divestment.”


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The House has been run like a plantation, declares Clinton (Video Here)

On a day when most of the country was celebrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. New York Senator Hillary Clinton spent her day off with nationally renowned race-pimp Al Sharpton name calling and race baiting. She even went as far as accusing Republicans of running the House of Representatives like a plantation.

(CNN Video Here)


Clinton's specific quote was:

"When you look at how the House of Representatives has been run; it has been runt like a plantation."

The funniest part of the Senator’s comments was right after she made the plantation analogy. In an effort to egg on the crowd she declares:

“And you know what I’m talking about!”

Apparently, the people in the predominantly black audience didn’t know what she was talking about.

But needless to say, Clinton’s favorite house negro came to her defense and explained to the media exactly what Hilary meant to say.

“Because of seniority and colloquial politics the bosses make the decisions.”

Maybe I am mistaken, but isn’t that exactly how the Democrat Party treat blacks? The party bosses (ie. Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi) control the overseers (ie. Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters or Al Rangel) who are then in charge of keeping the negroes in line. And if one dare step out of line (ie. Michael Steele, JC Watts or Ward Connerly) it is the job of these overseers to give them the appropriate tongue lashing. At least that is how I see it.

And as for those poor oppressed house democrats; the Republican man is obviously guilty once again of keeping them down. I propose that President Bush issue a new Emancipation Proclamation. In this one he will declare all house Democrats free from the bondage of elective office. And from this day forth, they shall be free to leave Congress anytime they so choose.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Bi dad sues gay moms for parental rights- Case blows nuclear family to smithereens!

Mr. B impregnates Mrs. A who happens to be married to Mrs. C, thus producing daughter D. Now, A and C want to leave town with D. So, B sues A and C to be recognized as a natural parent of D.

So, why is 6 afraid of 7? Because 7,8,9… I couldn’t resist!

The UK Sun reports:

A BISEXUAL man who answered an advert to father a lesbian couple’s baby has won a landmark court battle to be one of the official parents, it was revealed yesterday.

The man had sex with one of the women and she had a daughter, now five years old.
But the man, referred to only as Mr B, then demanded the right to parental responsibility for the child on matters such as education and health.

He was refused and went to the High Court’s Family Division which has upheld his entitlement to be an official parent of the child, known as D.

For those who deny that the traditional family is under attack let this case serve as a warning.

Not only do you have all the elements of your everyday custody battle, which by the way is ugly in and of itself. But you add into it the fact that this situation was created intentionally by those whose selfish desire to be parents took president over the needs of their child.

Here we have a woman who, together with a man produced a child. And then, knowing the important role this father played in her child’s life, intentionally sought to deny her child -the love and affection of having her father. And there is little doubt that she knew the value that the father added to her child’s life, because for five years she allowed Mr. B to be an active part of his child’s life.

The judge said: “Dr Sturge did not find D muddled about her family. She told Dr Sturge that she is lucky because she has two mummies. She knows that she grew in her mother’s tummy and she knows that Mr B is ‘Daddy’ and calls him that.

“She knows Mr B loves her, as everyone acknowledges he does.

“She has no idea at the moment about how babies begin to grow and therefore she does not know that, in the biological sense, Mr B is her father.”

The only part of this whole case that made sense was the judge’s reasoning for how she would eventually rule.

She said that whatever the law may do to change the shape of family life, nothing could beat the fact a child had a natural parent.

Every child has only two natural parents… One mother and one father. Anything else is in fact unnatural.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Black Man offered leadership position in Klu Klux Klan. Inspiration behind Chapelle Show sketch?


Twenty-five years ago Ron Stallworth was asked to lead the Colorado Springs Chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. That would have made Stallworth the first Black man to lead a branch of the KKK.

According to the Desert News:

About 25 years ago, Ron Stallworth was asked to lead the Ku Klux Klan chapter in Colorado Springs. Problem was, the outgoing Klan leader didn't know that Stallworth is black.

"He asked me to take over the lead because I was a good, loyal Klansman," said Stallworth, who had been in constant phone contact with the Klan leader while leading a yearlong Colorado Springs police investigation into the Klan.

Stallworth later moved to Utah, where he recently retired after nearly 20 years as an investigator for the Utah Department of Public Safety. He says he's amazed that no one ever caught on to the investigation he led starting in 1979. After he was offered Klan leadership, he quietly disappeared.

As a memento Stallworth still carries his Klan membership card — signed by David Duke.

How politically correct have we gotten when even the KKK institutes and Affirmative Action Program?

On another note: This story does remind me of a skit done on the Chapelle Show about a leader in the white supremacist movement who turned out to be a blind black man who had no idea he was black.

I found the video of the sketch, but after watching it, I thought it might be a little too over the top to post. For those of you who have seen it what do you think? Should I post it?


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Carry a condom or be convicted of a crime- Say that 10 times fast!


In Tulua, Columbia a measure is being considered that would require anyone over the age of 14 to carry a condom with them at all time. This would include men, women, youth and yes even priests.

The Associated Press is reporting:

Roman Catholic priests in a Colombian town are furious over a councilman's proposal that people 14 and older must carry a condom at all times to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

William Pena, a councilman in Tulua, said Wednesday he will present a formal proposal requiring all men and women — even those just on a visit to the town — to carry at least one condom. Those caught empty-pocketed could be fined $180 or ordered to take a safe sex course, he said.

I don’t know that this idea merits serious commentary, let alone serious consideration. Let’s just file it under “Stupid Ideas Coming to a Liberal American City Near You.”

Maybe we should start a pool to see who proposes it first. My money is on San Francisco!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Lower Student Fees- Assistance to the poor or subsidy for the wealthy?

Today, Governor Schwarzenegger will release his proposed 2006-07 Budget. In it will be a proposal to freeze tuition levels for state colleges, universities and community colleges; a move that would cost taxpayers about $130 million.

Well political columnist, Daniel Weintraub argues (quite effectively I might add) that such reduction in student fees might actually hurt California’s poor and needy.

In his Sacramento Bee column, Weintraub writes:

To understand why this is so, step back and consider how college fees, financial aid and university budgets work together. The lower the fees, the bigger the taxpayer subsidy to those who get no direct financial aid: the children of the most affluent citizens in our state. And the higher the subsidy for those folks, the less money that's available for financial aid to the needy and for hiring new faculty to expand the number of slots available to everyone, including the poor.

Considering this argument, perhaps a better way to meet the goal of promoting access to higher education for California’s poor and needy would be to increase financial aid available to middle and low-income families.

Weintraub, however, goes even further to suggest that the state consider the entire state subsidy (estimated to be an average of about $15k per student per year) to be financial aid. And as such, that financial aid should be targeted to the most needy a opposed to all students.

If equity is your goal, the best policy would be to charge full-freight for a university education and then use taxpayer dollars to give subsidies only to those who can't afford it. A needs-based fee policy would give the taxpayers the biggest bang for their bucks while helping those who need it most.

In the example given, the average cost of educating a student in the UC system is $20k per year. The state subsidy would be only $5k per year for students who do not demonstrate a need for financial aid. He states that this would free up enough money to in fact fully subsidize the education of the state’s most needy students.

With the lower fees, every student, regardless of means, gets a hidden subsidy of $15,000 per year. Multiply that by 40,000 students and you have used up the entire $600 million budget.

No money remains for aid targeted to the most financially needy students.
In the high-fee model, on the other hand, the untargeted subsidy is only $5,000 per student.

Again assuming 40,000 students, it takes only $200 million in tax dollars to support the system.

With the money left over, the state could cover the entire cost of education for all financially needy students (about half the total enrollment) and still have funds to serve an additional 8,000 students.

"For any given amount of state support, low fees and high levels of untargeted financial aid do not efficiently use the state's limited resources and do not maximize access to higher education," the analyst concluded.

This is an interesting proposal to say the least. Unfortunately, it is one that will never be given the full consideration it truly deserves.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com