What would you learn by reading headlines from our culture? I read more than 500 headlines everyday and there has not been a day when I was not shocked, saddened, or in some way discouraged by the state of our culture. Common sense has flown out the window. Right is wrong. Clearly wrong is celebrated.
Maybe you’ve been in a bubble, or an echo chamber. Maybe you’ve been too busy to notice. If there is any doubt that our culture is in trouble, perhaps the following few headlines will give an indication of how much trouble we’re in.
“University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax and University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirercalling for a revival of the bourgeois values that characterized mid-century American life, including child-rearing within marriage, hard work, self-discipline on and off the job, and respect for authority. The late 1960s took aim at the bourgeois ethic, they say, encouraging an ‘antiauthoritarian, adolescent, wish-fulfillment ideal [of] sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll that was unworthy of, and unworkable for, a mature, prosperous adult society.’”
The authors of this article came under attack, were called sexist and racist for daring to suggest that people – all people – should be hard working, self-disciplined, and respectful (among other things). Somehow the very idea of accountability in our culture has been deemed both sexist and racist. Continue reading…
Okay, so you’re upset that Samantha Bee seems to have gotten a pass for her outrageous comments about Ivanka Trump. And you are still made that Joy Reid has seemingly had no repercussions for her past comments, and even some of her recent comments. And you have an ongoing sore spot due to Joy Behar being able to say whatever she wants with no consequences.
But, do you have any idea of why these people are still on the air?
After the comments made by this collective of liberal women, its hard to believe that they are still allowed to host a show. After all, so many others have been fired, immediately, for making comments deemed inappropriate. Remember Roseanne?
Why is Joy Reid still on the air after making what the media calls “homophobic” comments? She once suggested former Florida Governor Charlie Crist was gay, conservative commentator Ann Coulter was a man, and accused numerous media and hollywood figures of being gay.
And in what world is Samantha Bee allowed to return to her show after her vulgar insult toward Ivanka Trump? Bee used a word to describe another woman that can best be described as crude, offensive, and pornographic. After a few days away from her show she’s back as if nothing has happened.
And Joy Behar? If offensive comments, obvious bias, and hatred toward people you disagree with were sufficient cause to be fired, Joy Behar would’ve been fired a long time ago. One of her most recent in a long line of absurd and offensive comments was aimed at Vice President Mike Pence. Behar compared the faith of VP Pence to a mental illness. Continue reading…
Many of our clients are federal employees. Others are married to federal employees. And everyone knows a federal employee. Knowing this, it is important to share information regarding a proposal by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding potential changes to the FERS and CSRS income and pension system.
A recent article shares details of a proposal released by OPM Director Jeff Pon, in which Pon says his objective is “to bring Federal benefits more in line with the private sector.” The proposal aims to reduce the amount of money the federal government spends each year on income and pensions for federal employees.
It is estimated that the proposal would save the federal government approximately $143 billion over the next ten years.
Some of the highlights of the proposal are: Continue reading…
I’ve run into more than one Christian that has told me their “retirement plan is heaven.” On the surface this sounds like a highly spiritual answer to a biblical question. In reality, this shows a lack of understanding of biblical financial principles.
Saving for emergencies and retirement is not a lack of faith in God. Accumulating assets for our medical care and basic needs when we are older is not a sin. In order to properly address this, however, we must first understand some simple biblical truths.
A recent article highlights a number of biblical principles for saving and investing. I found it well-written. Three of the principles listed include the detriment of debt, the biblical nature of saving for our future, and how wise investing is good.
Let’s just cut to the chase right now and admit that people have too much debt. Between mortgages, second mortgages, home equity lines of credit, multiple car payments, multiple credit cards, and student loans, people have too much debt. Debt is indeed a form of bondage (Prov. 22:7). Beyond the fact that we become the servant of another when we incur debt, we miss out on other opportunities.
By having debt, the money we pay each month towards those debts cannot be used for better opportunities. When we compound our debts, we are not only making principle payments, we are making interest payments. Those interest payments add up and reduce our purchasing power and opportunities. Furthermore, debt will ensure we have to work longer and have less to save. Continue reading…
More specifically, if your business was to provide search results to customer queries, would you want to be known for providing comprehensive search results or for providing politically charged search results?
That’s the decision Google is now faced with as pro-abortion advocates demand the internet search giant limit search results to pacify their political agenda.
Abortion advocates apparently have no problem with censorship as long as it favors them. I can’t imagine they would be as excited if pro-life groups were calling for Google to censor abortion clinics in search results. I imagine that would cause them to scream and protest about censorship. Then again, if you’re willing to kill unborn children I suppose censoring your opponents really isn’t a big deal.
A recent article reports:
“On Tuesday, abortion activists with the groups UltraViolet and CREDO protested outside Google headquarters in California, demanding that the media giant remove pregnancy centers from its internet search results.” Continue reading…
Earlier this year a fertility clinic at the University Hospital in Cleveland, OH had to explain why their storage tank failed, and 4000 frozen embryo’s and eggs were destroyed. The malfunction impacted approximately 950 families that had embryos and eggs stored in the tank.
CEO Thomas F. Zenty III issued a public apology and took responsibility for the malfunction and hoped actions taken after the incident would restore trust.
“We failed our fertility clinic patients. We are sorry. I am sorry. And we’re going to do everything we can to regain our patients’ trust.These failures should not have happened, we take responsibility for them – and we are so sorry that our failures caused such a devastating loss to you…We hope our actions will restore your trust in us.”
On the surface this looks like a tragedy. But why? According to Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court, and the legal system in the United States, these were just blobs of tissue, cells clumped together that represented the potential for human life, certainly not anything alive. Why would anyone be upset over this incident?
People are understandably excited. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker that refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake. Throughout the entire 6 year ordeal, Jack maintained that he would happily serve gay customers and bake them anything they wanted; but that he does not bake same-sex wedding cakes.
In fact, Jack doesn’t bake Halloween cakes, cakes with explicit messages or photos, divorce cakes, or cakes containing alcohol. These guidelines stem from Jack’s religious convictions. These guidelines allow Jack to happily serve every customer that walks into his shop but still refuse to create cakes with certain messages.
The Colorado Human Rights Commission said Jack discriminated against two men based on their sexual orientation. Jack was fined and ordered to undergo state sponsored monitoring. That’s creepy in a China-ish sort of way. Jack appealed to the Supreme Court where the court, in a lopsided ruling, ruled in favor of Jack.
So people are understandably excited.
Before we get too excited though, let’s understand why this ruling has rightly been called “narrow.” Continue reading…
In the wake of the controversy surrounding Paige Patterson, the former president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a leading voice in the Southern Baptist Convention, asked a poignant question.
Mohler, wondering out loud about how to think concerning the problems of sexual abuse in Baptist circles asked:
“Is complementarianism the problem? Is it just camouflage for abusive males and permission for the abuse and mistreatment of women? We can see how that argument would seem plausible to so many looking to conservative evangelicals and wondering if we have gone mad.” Continue reading…
President Trump has once again kept his promise to be a pro-life president. For that I am grateful. But I have major concerns with the effect his actions will have.
President Trump has once again delivered on his campaign promise to be a pro-life president by reinstating a policy that denies Title X funding to any community health center that provides abortion. Title X is the federal program that provides free and low-cost health services, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and mammograms to low income people.
Planned Parenthood has been the recipient of these funds, to the tune of $60 million per year, for quite a while. That revenue stream for the abortion merchant came to an end when President Trump proposed the “Protect Life Rule,” which would refuse federal funds to any group providing abortion.
Despite hysterics by Planned Parenthood, a recent articlemakes clear that this proposal does not defund Planned Parenthood or outlaw abortion:
“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law. Any grantees that perform, support, or refer for abortion have a choice – disentangle themselves from abortion or fund their activities with privately raised funds.”
This proposal simply requires any health service organization receiving Title X funds to be an entirely separate entity from one providing abortions. Planned Parenthood, for example, could continue to provide abortions as long as such facilities are completely separate from the facilities where they provide other services. Of course Planned Parenthood wants everyone to think that all health care for all women is now in jeopardy. Continue reading…