Gay Bar Refuses Straights

A San Francisco gay bar has banned bachelorette parties, saying "any celebration of straight marriage" is banned, according to LA Weekly.

Now, you might remember the story about The Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast which is being raked over the coals for refusing to host a civil union in Illinois. A state board is after them for "discrimination."

So how is what this gay bar is doing any different from what the bed and breakfast is doing?

As far as I can see, I have no problem with these folks doing this but I also have no problem with the bar declaring "No straights allowed."

But something tells that that the state of California won't be going after this gay bar for discrimination.

The Butler Did It! Seriously

You can't make this stuff up. The butler did it.

Pope Benedict XVI’s trusted butler was busted yesterday by Vatican police for allegedly stealing the pontiff’s personal papers and sparking a five-month scandal that embarrassed the Holy See.

Paolo Gabriele, 40, was caught red-handed — with secret Vatican documents — when he arrived for work at the papal apartments near St. Peter’s Basilica, Italian media reported.

His arrest comes a month after Benedict appointed a special commission of three senior cardinals to find who has been leaking Holy See secrets — including letters to the pope about alleged Vatican corruption and power struggles.

Benedict was described as shocked and saddened by the scandal, dubbed “Vatileaks.”

Gabriele, known as Paoletto (Little Paul), has been the lay person closest to Benedict for six years.

Father of Six Discover He's A Woman!

This is the weirdest story of the day:

A Colorado man who was admitted to the hospital for a kidney stone received surprising news when the nurse came back with test results revealing he was actually a woman.
Denver photographer Steve Crecelius said he's felt a little different all his life.
"When I was about 6 years old, I started having these feminine feelings, but that was in the '60s. Wearing my mom's makeup, I thought I looked pretty," Crecelius told ABC News.
So when he went to the emergency room five years ago, he wasn't too shocked when the nurse told him she found traits of both genders in his ultrasound results.
He was intersex, meaning he had both male genitalia and internal female sex organs.
"The nurse is reading the ultrasound and says, 'Huh, this says you're a female,' Crecelius said. "It was very liberating. I had spent so much energy after the age of 13 constantly evaluating how people looked at me and acted towards me."
Steve, who now goes by "Stevie," said his wife and their six children accepted his new identity right away.
"We told them individually. Some were in person and some weren't," Crecelius said. "Every one of them said, 'We don't care one way or the other. We love you for who you are and you're still my dad.'"
Crecelius and his wife, Debbie, have been together for 25 years and she's supported him every step of the way, including taking him to buy his first bra.
She told Crecelius, "You know, when I first saw you, I said to myself, 'He runs like a girl.'"
"I think we were pretty good when she began to mourn the loss of her husband," Crecelius said. "We worked through what we needed to. The concept of unconditional love is a larger story."

You see, how all this is reported as some kind of wonderful story. I've got to wonder how the kids really felt about this.

And what's the deal with buying a bra? Does he need a bra?

I think the thing that weirds me out the most about this is the whole thought that you have no choice about who you are. They found some internal organs of a woman, so now you have to start wearing a bra? And isn't this exactly the oppositte thing we're told about people who change their gender? Transgender folks and their allies argue that while they were born with certain parts they know different and so they change their gender and make themselves who they feel they want to be. So why, then, is the presence of certain internal organs force Steve to start wearing bras? Doesn't this actually go against what they've been arguing for years?

Bethlehem Joins Pontius Pilate and King David as Actually Existing!!!

I didn't even know that the existence of Bethlehem was in doubt but...hey, it's in The Bible so I guess that makes some smarty pants people with letters after their name react in a knee jerk manner that it can't (JUST CAN"T!!!) be true.

But it turns out that Bethlehem can now join the ranks of Pontius Pilate and King David who were believed by many not to have even existed, mainly because the Bible said they did so therefore it couldn't be true.

Israeli archaeologists said on Wednesday they had discovered the first physical evidence supporting Old Testament accounts of Bethlehem's existence centuries before the town became revered as the birthplace of Jesus.

The proof came, they said, in a clay seal unearthed near the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem and imprinted with three lines of ancient Hebrew script that include the word "Bethlehem".

Eli Shukron, who directed the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, said the seal apparently had been placed on a tax shipment of silver or agricultural produce sent from Bethlehem to the King of Judah in nearby Jerusalem in the 8th or 7th century BC.

"This is the first time the name Bethlehem appears outside the Bible in an inscription from the First Temple period," Shukron said in a statement, referring to the years 1006 BC to 586 BC.

The coin-sized remnant of the seal proves that Bethlehem - first mentioned in the Book of Genesis - "was indeed a city in the Kingdom of Judah, and possibly also in earlier periods", he said.

I get a kick out of anytime the Bible is proved historically accurate because maybe, just maybe, some people might think that if the Bible is right about this...maybe, just maybe it's right about some other things.

Oh No! Son Of Boing Boing!

Don't do it.

I am serious, don't do it.

I have nothing against Rand Paul, other than his wacko Dad named him after a utilitarian dipstick, but this news scares me.

Mitt Romney had a lengthy sit down with Rand Paul, son of Professor Boing Boing.

Now Rand Paul seems like a sorta sane individual and no son should have to denounce his wacky father (other than Charlie Sheen, Colin Hanks, any of the offspring of Alec Baldwin.)

Note to Mitt. Ron Paul supporters are not conservatives. They are not the droids you are looking for.

Sources close to Senator Rand Paul tell National Review Online that Paul and Mitt Romney had a private meeting on Wednesday. Details of the topics discussed are hazy, but Paul — the son of Texas congressman (and presidential candidate) Ron Paul — reportedly found the meeting productive.

Ron Paul people are not the tea party and they are not the people you should be courting. I have nothing against Rand Paul, other than his experience and parentage make him the worst possible VP candidate imaginable.

Don't do it!!!

White House Lie: Our Door is Open to Bishops

The Cafferty File on CNN has a typically unbalanced report on the lawsuit against the HHS mandate. But this isn't about the bias, it's about how the Obama administration regularly lies.

Here's a piece of the report:

As a compromise, they said insurance companies would have to provide contraception for employees who wanted it - so Catholic employers could avoid directly providing birth control.

But that wasn't good enough for the church.

So far, the White House isn't commenting on these lawsuits, although one official told The Wall Street Journal that they're still trying to work things out with Catholic leaders: "Lawsuits or no lawsuits, our doors remain open."

Doors remain open?

But this flies in the face of what Timothy Cardinal Dolan recently told Charlie Rose who said of Obama, "He keeps telling me he wants this to work," said Dolan. But we've heard from the White House that this is all your going to get and there will be no substantial mitigation."

So here you have two mutually exclusive statements from a Cardinal and the President but the media would rather just report that Obama has an open door to the bishops, which is a lie under pretty much any common definition of an open door.

You see, what Obama means when he says the door is open is that you're welcome to come in and surrender any time.

Remember in 2010 when Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House, Obama tried to get him to sign a written agreement about settlements. When Netanyahu refused, Obama stormed out of the meeting, told him he could consult with advisers and said “let me know if there is anything new."

That's what Obama means by open door.

NY Proposes Ban on Anonymous Comments

I am no fan of anonymous comments. As a conservative, if I don't like them I can choose to turn them off. Liberals (even Republican liberals) are not content to make their own choice. They want you to make their choice too.

NYS lawmakers are proposing a ban on anonymous comments.

I am serious. There is no problem so small that legislators can leave to ordinary people.

Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller that the bill is “clearly unconstitutional.”

“The Supreme Court has held for 50 years that anonymous speech is protected,” explained Volokh, pointing to the 1960 case Talley v. California. “This kind of breach of anonymity on demand is just not constitutional.”

“I would love to hear from these legislators… Presumably at least one of them should be able to speak to the constitutional objections to the statute,” Volokh added.

The sponsor of the state Senate’s version, Republican Thomas O’Mara, told TheDC that he had not initially considered that the legislation might ban First Amendment-protected speech.

Butt out!!

Study: IVF Puts Women in Danger

You know how pretty much any study that says there may be an increased rate of cancer if you use your cell phone, drink soda, eat meat or cook your lunch in the microwave.

But any study that says anything about contraception or IVF being in danger to women is typically met with silence by the mainstream media.

So CMR thanks the UK Telegraph for their report showing a link between IVF treatements in your women and breast cancer.

Researchers at the University of Western Australia found women who had IVF treatment at a younger age had a higher risk of developing the disease over the following 15 years.

Oestrogen, a hormone which is known to fuel certain forms of breast cancer, may be up to 13 times higher during an IVF cycle than normal.

Concerns have been raised about the use of strong hormones to stimulate the ovaries to produce more eggs during fertility treatment as hyperstimulation can be fatal.

I'm telling you that there's a lot of Catholics out there who don't have any clue that IVF is viewed as anything but a wonderful new way to make babies. I can think of three Catholics who didn't.

I don't know why we don't discuss this more. We should absolutely promulgate this more. And besides being morally problematic, it's dangerous.

Every, Every Life Is God's Gift

Have you seen this video?

Lacey Buchanan of Woodbury, Tennessee is a mom and for that she has been criticized. You see, our culture and some rude people on the street think she should have aborted her son Christian. WOuldn't everyone be better off.

Lacey Buchanan answers those critics in a very moving way that shows that every life, every life is part of God's plan and a gift.

When you watch this video in which Lacey doesn't speak, you will assume that she tells her whole story through the written cards she holds up. No, the real story is told in her face. Her face...

I have to go now, I have something in my eye.

Hans Küng: Pope A Schismatic!

I knew that Hans Küng is a heretic, but I never knew that he was this funny.

Hans Küng has warned the Pope that he will ipso facto be a schismatic by allowing the SSPX back into the Church. Apparently the Big Tent Church the liberals love is all out of room.

Pope Benedict will be a schismatic because the SSPX has questions about Vatican II. Every other doctrine or dogma is up for discussion, but not Vatican II.

Both in the official and in the alternative activities in the Mannheim Katholikentag*, the prevailing sentiment was one of resentment and frustration over the delayed reforms in the Church. In fierce contrast with that, Pope Benedict XVI prepares, apparently for Pentecost, the final reconciliation with the Catholic Church of the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X, with its bishops and priests. This should happen even if the SSPX keeps rejecting key conciliar documents, having to be incorporated into the Church with the use of skillful canonical tactics. Before the Pope does this, he must be duly warned, not least by the bishops, because of the following:



1. The pope would be including in the Church bishops and priests that are definitely invalidly ordained. According to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI "Pontificalis Romani recognitio", of July 18, 1968, the ordination of bishops and priests by Archbishop Lefebvre is not only illegal but also invalid. This view is shared among others by a relevant member of the "Doctrinal Commission", Karl Josef Becker, SJ, now a cardinal.**



2. With such a scandalous decision, Pope Benedict would, in his overall regretted isolation, be even more separated from the People of God. The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when there is separation from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. "Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church." (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).



3. A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread popular movement of "disobedience" against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. Instead of reconciling with the ultra-conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic SSPX, the Pope should rather care about the majority of reform-minded Catholics and reconcile with the churches of the Reformation and the entire ecumenical movement. Thus he would unite, and not divide.

So now he is claiming that the Church will have no Pope. It goes to show you that the crazies on the left end up in the same place as the crazies on the right.