It has been reported recently that Google has complied with a government request in Indonesia to pull LGBT apps from their Play Store. It appears that, though “homosexuality and gay sex are legal in Indonesia,” the government and cultural norms frown on LGBT behavior. The government has requested, and Google has complied, with removing some LGBT apps from their Play Store in order to discourage homosexual behavior.
At the time of this writing it appears that the Indonesian government has requested up to 73 LGBT apps be removed from availability to the Indonesian people in Google’s Play Store. It is unclear how many have been removed but, it appears, that at least some of the apps have already been yanked.
I’ll admit that I’m perplexed by news that Google is complying with a government request to yank LGBT apps from their Play Store. I thought Google was a “tolerant,” “inclusive” company that championed the views of the sexual revolution. I thought Google openly mocked and blacklisted anyone that dared to disagree with their corporate code.
Wasn’t it Google that called for the firing of James Damore, the former engineer that dared to express views not shared by Google? Wasn’t it Google that openly mocked conservative values, and felt free to blacklist conservatives from their company campus? Wasn’t it Google that supported every conceivable lifestyle, including people identifying as fictional beasts and buildings? I was certain that it was Google that made clear in the Damore case that “intolerance” against individuals (except conservatives) would not be tolerated or supported.
I wonder how the employees feel about pulling LGBT apps from the Play Store? Do they sit around in meeting sharing an understanding nod and look of approval because, after all, this is Indonesia. Do they give the Indonesian government a pass because they are the government and have the right to govern as they see fit?
It has been reported that the Indonesian government recently forced several transgender women to cut their hair and wear men’s clothing to show their disapproval of transgenderism. Does anyone at Google consider that removing the LGBT apps will be a sign of support for the governments actions?
Or maybe, just maybe, Google is a corporation with profit as its first priority and the bottom line as its main concern.
I’ve seen a lot of ultrasound videos, but this one is unique and a powerful testimony to the humanity of the unborn.
I really can’t figure out how Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other abortion advocates continue to call pro-lifers “anti-science,” when every bit of scientific evidence supports the pro-life position. Pro-lifers have been saying the unborn are human for years while abortion advocates say it isn’t so. And yet, every ultra-sound video confirms once again just how human and alive the unborn really are.
In this newest video, an MRI ultra-sound, the living child is just 20 weeks old, the age pro-lifers want to protect unborn children from abortion. This is also the age abortion advocates don’t want protected, even though these unborn children can feel pain and are just as human and alive as you and I.
In the video we get to see the child in amazing detail through the use of MRI and ultra-sound technology. We get to watch as the child turns her head, kicks her legs, squirms around seeming to try and reposition or get comfortable in her small living space. She even stretches her legs. And, if you look closely, you will see this little child’s beating heart. Once you see a video like this, it is impossible to deny that this is a living human being.
The reality that this is a living human being capable of feeling pain must be the reason the abortion lobby is so adamant that women not see a video of their unborn child before having an abortion. Planned Parenthood has fought for years to take down any law requiring a woman have an ultra-sound before an abortion. Why? Simply because any human being that sees her unborn child squiggle and squirm will not have the heart to kill the child. Fewer abortions is bad business for Planned Parenthood. Continue reading
When reality is pushed aside in favor of the way people feel, the implications are vast. Some implications are immediately known and brought to light. In the case of people claiming to be transgender, an immediate implication is how a business will respond concerning use of their bathroom.
But not all implications can be predicted. Often it is these unknown variables that can throw everything into a tailspin.
After the celebration by our culture of people claiming to be transgender, came the revelation that some people are “trans-racial.” Much like a transgender person that claims they are really the opposite gender, a trans-racial person claims to actually be a different ethnicity.
For example, headlines not long ago shared the story of a white man that “self-identifies” as Filipino. Even though Adam is a white male, he now identifies as a Ja Du,a Filipino male. And who cold forget the story or Rachel Dolezal, a white woman that claimed she was African American. Dolezal even held a top leadership spot in the ACLU of Washington state; until the truth was revealed.
For Cecile Richards, the head (and face) of Planned Parenthood, the answer is simple: resign.
For the last 12 years Richards has led Planned Parenthood to become the world’s largest abortion merchant. Making use of her political ties Richards made abortion a central plank in every Democrat’s platform. Abortion is now, among Democrats, considered a “fundamental human right,” though it has only been legal for 45 years. And Planned Parenthood has reaped the benefits of Richard’s political gamesmanship in the form of approximately $500 million dollars in tax-funding each year over the last decade.
Richards’ resignation announcement is a surprise that few saw coming. She has had no challengers to her leadership at Planned Parenthood and has, arguably, done an excellent job leading the organization. When news broke that Richards might resign, it immediately made headlines with supporters and opponents wigging in.
But why resign? If you have taken an organization from mediocrity to international prominence, why head for the door now?
Could it have something to do with the administration change in Washington? It’s no secret that former President Obama was a huge abortion and Planned Parenthood supporter. He did everything in his power to aid Planned Parenthood. This included giving the non-profit organization millions in tax-payer funds each year, blocking any legislation to limit abortion, appointing pro-abortion judges and other government officials, refusing to have his DOJ investigate the organization for selling aborted baby body parts, and even cutting off federal funding to Texas after it dared to defund Planned Parenthood. President Obama was truly a friend of abortion and Planned Parenthood.
So far, however, President Trump has made it clear that he supports life and his administration will defend the unborn at every opportunity. Trump’s first loud and clear message was to nominate staunchly pro-life judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. Other actions, such as rescinding President Obama’s threat to defund any state that yanks funding for Planned Parenthood, appointing pro-life government officials, and appearing via video feed to the March for Life (the first president to do so), are sending a clear message to the nation that President Trump intends to be a pro-life president.
Perhaps this new administration’s pro-life policy has encouraged Richards to step down. Maybe she sees the writing on the wall for Planned Parenthood. Maybe she is concerned about the new DOJ investigation into Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling aborted baby body parts for profit. Without President Obama and pro-abortion allies like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will protect Planned Parenthood? Now, if they have violated federal law, someone might actually be prosecuted. Maybe Cecile Richards doesn’t want to get her hands dirty (anymore).
Or maybe Richards is smart enough to see that support for abortion is falling. As science continues to show us the humanity of the unborn, younger generations are rejecting abortion ideology in favor of life. Consider for a moment that over the last 5 years Planned Parenthood has done an average of 325,000 abortions each year. While that number is sickening, it’s not growing, it’s declining.
As I watched the commercial during an NFL playoff game my mouth dropped. I’d been reading about it for months. But here it was coming at me in primetime television and I had to do a double take.
Up until now it was mostly theoretical and abstract for me. But now the potential global impact of this new technology was in front of my eyes. And apparently, IBM has beaten everyone else to the punch by launching a nationwide commercial.
If you’re unfamiliar with blockchain technology, keep reading. The fact is, this new technology has the potential to revolutionize every industry on the planet.
Imagine for a moment the ability to conduct business quicker, safer, more secure. What used to take hours, or even days, can now take just minutes. Imagine what used to require several middlemen is now a safe, secure transaction between just two people: a buyer and seller (or sender and receiver). With fewer middlemen to drive up costs and make mistakes, global business has the potential to become more efficient and cheaper.
In the current system, if you wanted to wire money to a relative overseas, you go to the bank (during banking hours), and use the banks wire service to send the funds. It will cost you a nice little fee, and take a couple of days for the funds to be sent as the bank verifies the funds transfer. This current system, essentially, makes you pay for the use of a middle man to transfer your funds. Additionally, you are trusting a third party to act in your best interest rather than conducting business solely between you and your relative. And really, you are just paying (and waiting) for a bank employee to make an entry in a ledger.
WHAT IS BLOCKCHAIN?
The easiest way to describe blockchain is this: it is a decentralized ledger where transaction contracts are created and stored instantly and securely.
Basically, instead of relying on a bank to move your money, you could do it yourself, without the middle man. If you wanted to wire $1,000 to a relative in Europe, you could do so using blockchain in a matter of seconds, with little to no cost. And there’s no third party to make mistakes or drive up costs. Continue reading
A video clip surfaced of a reality show in which an R&B singer, Ginuwine, was accused of being transphobic because he didn’t want to date a transgender person. Apparent’y it’s no longer enough to support transgender rights, now, if you aren’t willing to date transgender people you are transphobic.
The scene unfolded on an episode of “Celebrity Big Brother UK” when one of the cast members, India Willoughby, lamented that man don’t want to date “her” because she is a transgender woman. Ginuwine commented that such a decision was a personal choice and he would choose not to be with a transgender person. That sentiment set off a conversation in which Ginuwine was attacked for his personal decision.
Let’s analyze several of the comments made regarding this issue.
“India Willoughby — a journalist — was sitting next to Ginuwine on a couch and lamenting that ‘a lot of guys wouldn’t go out with somebody like me, even though I’m a woman.’”
Actually, I think a lot of guys won’t go out with India because he’s a man. Changing your name, your outward appearance, the way you dress, or even your genitalia does not make you a woman. Your genetic code, your chromosomes is that of a man. Biologically, you are a man. This might come as a surprise, but many men simply don’t want to date another man.
“Another cast member seemed to agree, pointing to “fragile masculinity” as the reason why straight men don’t get involved with transgender women.”
This is a false conclusion. I’m so strong in my masculinity that I am positive I don’t want to date another man. My masculinity is firmly planted in reality where the natural order of male-female relationships prevails and I am only attracted to biological females. That’s not a sign of “fragile masculinity” but of strong, assured masculinity.
In another statement, India said:
Even unfounded accusations of discrimination garner plenty of attention. Take for example the accusation by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that a woman was upset she had to give up her first class seat only because Jackson-Lee is black. That entirely unfounded accusation of discrimination gained media attention simply because it was made.
No one is denying that discrimination happens. Cases of real discrimination against minorities and women continue to make life and work in our world difficult for someone people. But what if this unseemly act has a dark underbelly against a group that no one would suspect? Or, at least that no one will talk about?
Most people are familiar with the former Google engineer that was fired for writing a memo in which he made comments Google found incompatible with their corporate culture. James Damore wrote the memo to express his belief that it was possible more men work in technology due to personal choice and perhaps due to the inherent biological differences between men and women. Of course such notions can hardly be spoken among friends at a dinner party, much less in corporate America where any hint that differences exist will be immediately vilified.
So James Damore was fired. He then went on to let the public peer behind the Google curtain in a way that we never did before. What we saw is a company that despises white males, pays women less, loathes conservatives, and is willing to engage in every form of intolerance; all while claiming to be a tolerant work place. (Click here for 19 unbelievable statements from his lawsuit)
Consider some of the allegations made by Damore in his lawsuit against Google: Continue reading
I’ve never been able to get past the lack of common sense that says if we encourage kids to have “safe sex” it will result in fewer pregnancies and STD’s. The thinking is so backward, in my opinion, that it’s hard to take seriously. And, as it turns out, it’s also a failed strategy.
In recent years it has been the popular government position that teaching graphic, detailed sex education classes was the way to make sure high-school students had safe sex. The assumption went something like this: “students are going to have sex anyway, let’s make sure they know what they are doing.”
I suppose next the government will launch a “students are going to drink alcohol anyway, let’s make sure they know how much will make them drunk” campaign.
Or maybe we will see a “students are going to do drugs anyway, let’s make sure they do the ‘right drugs’” campaign.
As ridiculous as these sound, it is equally ridiculous that the government thought their graphic sex education class was a good idea. And even more ridiculous that school want to partner with the government to take this failed idea to elementary and Kindergarten classrooms. Why does a 1st grader need to know about sex?
A recent article reports the following concerning the failed approach to sex education:
“After two terms of the last administration’s ‘if-it-feels-good-do-it’ approach, most experts agree [it] accomplished one thing: making the situation worse. ‘Compared with their peers,’ a 2016 study by the American Journal of Public Health found, ‘teenagers in the [government’s programs] were more likely to begin having sex… and more likely to get pregnant.’ And it’s no wonder. The curriculum was so extreme that 40 percent of young people actually said they felt more pressure to engage in sex from their sex ed classes than from their boyfriends or girlfriends!”
It appears the classes intended to “educate” students on “safe sex” felt more like a call to action; or rather a push. But, as this approach shows, the government and schools didn’t give students enough credit. Just as we tell students not to drink, and expect them to live up to that expectation, we should be telling students not to have sex and expecting them to live up to that expectation.
Some find the idea of God’s sovereignty repugnant. They reason that if God has the ability and power to keep terrible things from happening, why doesn’t He? Since God doesn’t prevent terrible things from happening He must not be sovereign because any loving Father would surely intervene.
This isn’t a new way of questioning God’s sovereignty. This has been the predominant opposition to the idea of sovereignty on the part of skeptics, doubters, and Christians alike.
While God’s sovereignty is without question one of the most difficult, and, at times, troubling aspects to discuss, it is also one of the most critical to understand.
My Answer to the Question:
I have a simple answer to those that say God must not be sovereign because a loving Father would not allow terrible things to happen to His children.
What about Job?
In the account of Job we have a unique insight into God’s sovereignty particularly as it applies to His children. Here we see a man that is “the greatest of all the people of the east.” (1:3) He has been tremendously blessed by God and was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” (1:1) Continue reading
I don’t like talking about debt. But I spend a lot of time talking (and writing) about debt. Mainly because our nation is drowning in debt. From the recent college graduate with $80,000 in student loans, to the middle-aged working class adults that are still paying off student loans but have added a mortgage, car payments, credit car balances, and a home equity line; our nation has a serious debt crisis.
According to an article at Business Insider that published the results of a Trading Economics study, out of 30 countries, America ranks #10 for having the most debt. Americans have a collective $1.14 trillion in auto debt, $1.28 trillion in student loans, and $8.82 trillion in mortgage debt. The total household debt of Americans is up to $8.82 trillion (as of the third quarter of 2016).
These numbers give America a household-debt-to-GDP number of 78.8%; making us the country with the 10th highest debt.
A CNBC article ranks states with the most debt using the debt-to-income ratio number. Using this equation California has the most debt per person, followed closely by Hawaii, Virginia, Colorado, and Utah. Maryland and D.C. are also in the top 10. The difference between California, the state with the highest debt ratio, and Maryland, the #10 state on the list, is not much (1.84-2.34).
Is our nation’s debt problem simply due to circumstances beyond our control and unforeseen accidents? Or is there a reasonable explanation that we need to admit and begin correcting? Continue reading