But there's a moral one!

Florida's Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled last month that a Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional. She declared there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting. Maybe not, but there's a moral reason! She says in her ruling, "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting." Maybe not, but there's a moral basis!

We need to pray every day that God will raise up judges who are not afraid to make rulings based not only on the rule of law, but on sound moral principles!

"Judge rules against gay adoption ban." The Dallas Morning News; November 26, 2008; p. 4A.

All we want is tolerance! Yeah, right.

I guess you've heard the brouhaha over Obama's selection of Rick Warren to offer the prayer in the inaugural ceremonies. All the gays are quite upset. Rick Warren should not be allowed to participate in such a historic occasion, they say. What could Obama have been thinking? Who in his right mind would ask a Christian who believes the Bible to say a prayer?

I did tell Mr. Essie May that if Obama does not back down on this, he will gain a millimeter in my estimation. If he does back down, he won't lose much in my estimation, because there's not much in my estimation to lose!

We're in deep doo-doo!

The headline in yesterday's paper says Obama's stimulus plan may cost $850 billion. And you know how the government is -- if they say $850 billion, you can count on at least 50% more than that. The plan, Obama's aides say, is necessary to "jolt" the economy back to life. It is at least as much as what was spent during the Great Depression. Folks, though things look bad, we are NOT yet in Great Depression times. No one I know is going to bed with an empty stomach. No one I know is wearing rags. No one I know has been thrown out on the streets. In Great Depression times, everyone knew someone in those circumstances.

The plan is a "blend of new jobs, middle-class tax relief and expanded aid for the poor and the unemployed. " That sounds great, but Obama's middle-class shrinks everytime someone in his camp opens his mouth. It originally was anyone making less than $300,000. Then it was anyone making less than $250,000. Then it was anyone making less than $200,000. The last I heard, it was down to $150,000. Those are the people who will be hit with exorbitant taxes. Again, that sounds good, but think about where jobs come from. They are not created by poor people -- they are created by people who have money to invest in businesses. You take away their money, you take away some poor person's job. So let's look at the figures. Approximately four million people filed tax returns last year with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or over. If you divide the cost of Obama's plan among them, their taxes will have to be raised $225,000 each to cover it. Doesn't sound very reasonable, does it?

Ah, you say, but the government will be providing jobs. When have you ever known the federal government to efficiently run a business? Look at Medicare, Social Security, and cost overruns on every project they ever attempted. Remember $1000 toilet seats and $150 hammers? And I'm sorry to say that people today are not like the people in the Great Depression. The vast majority of those people wanted to work. The vast majority of today's "unemployed" have no intention of working. They just want the government dole. I'll be surprised if Obama's "rebuilding the infrastructure" plan can find enough people to work on it.

Then there comes the "expanded aid for the poor and unemployed." Our "poor" already get greatly reduced or free housing, food, and medical care. Why should we give them more? Most of them are poor because they're having multiple babies out of wedlock while deadbeat dad is standing on the corner selling drugs or is being supported by the taxpayer in a prison somewhere. I promise you, when we "expand aid for the poor and unemployed," we'll expand the number of "poor and unemployed" as more and more worthless people get in line for their share.

Yes, my friends, I'm afraid that instead of "jolting" the economy back to life, Obama's plan may just be the shock that kills it.

"Stimulus plan may cost $850B." The Dallas Morning News; December 18, 2008; p. 1A.

What do the critics see?

Essie May did some prognosticating yesterday about Oscar award winners. Why do critics pick the movies, musicals, and plays they do? What makes them better judges than the viewing public of what's good and what's not?

I've written earlier about Rowlett High School's decision to perform "Rent," a Tony-winning musical, and about North Lamar High School's decision to perform "Urinetown," another Tony-winning musical. In both instances, people who opposed those selections based on their messages were ridiculed as backwoods, uncultured, and ignorant. "Why, you've not even seen it," the proponents argued. "This is a Tony winning musical," they shouted. "Are you going to argue with the critics?"

So what do the critics see in these third-rate musicals that we don't? My contention is that the critics pick those plays for the same reason decent folks oppose them -- their messages. "Urinetown" presses the message of the haves vs. the have-nots and stirs up class envy. Of course, the haves are crooked, terrible people, and the have-nots are virtuous and brave. "Urinetown" presses the global warming message -- a theory that is about as goofy as evolution but is being shoved down our throats. "Rent" presses the homosexuals are just like you and me and we should accept them as they are message. "Rent" presses the judge not message. I am so tired of hearing people pull that scripture out to justify sin. They can't quote you anything else from the Bible, but they run around yelling "Judge not" everytime someone points out sin. God never intended us to accept sin under the guise of "judge not"!

Anyway, what got me started on this was a letter to the editor about "Rent." Grant Creeger of Plano sees that the emperor has no clothes. He said he was surprised that no one writing letters (mostly supporting the production) had mentioned seeing the musical. He says he paid top-dollar to see it performed by the primary touring company in Los Angeles. He says the professional company did not "disguise the fact that this is a third- or fourth-tier musical with one or two decent songs." "I barely made it through to the end," he says. Three cheers for one of the backwoods, uncultured, ignoramuses with enough courage to stand up and tell it like it is!

"'Rent' a yawner." The Dallas Morning News; December 16, 2008; p. 18A.

Essie May, the Prognisticator

Back a month or so ago, I told Mr. Essie May that I could tell him the winners of the next Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor. The envelope, please. And the winners are Milk, Gus Van Sant, and Sean Penn.

How do I know this? Simple. It's a movie about a homosexual. It's a given that any movie glorifying a homosexual will be an Oscar contender. Sure enough, when the reviews came out, they were glowing. Very few movies get an "A" rating in The Dallas Morning News, but this one did. "A compelling film full of great performances." "Mr. Van Sant succeeds in making a film in which everyone, heroes and villains, is real, human and sympathetic." "Sean Penn's performance is extraordinary, sealing his standing as the greatest actor of his generation." Give me a break -- Sean Penn is the greatest actor of his generation? What has this guy been smoking?!!

And one more little note -- I've written before about how the homosexual agenda tries to subtly ensnare us into accepting their deviant behavior. Here are a couple of quotes about the movie from Tom Maurstad. "The way Mr. Van Sant introduces us to Milk is also familiar and yet so subtly transgressive that we scarcely notice the boundaries being pushed." "And for the rest of the movie, that's what Harvey Milk does: win over people who don't want to be won over, who have already decided they won't be, and who then find themselves disarmed and charmed by a man who will keep taking no for an answer until he finally gets a yes." I think this proves that Essie May is not paranoid!

"Compelling tale is well-told." The Dallas Morning News; November 26, 2008; p. 1E.
"A man, a movement." The Dallas Morning News; November 28, 2008; p. 1E.

When you think you've heard it all . . .

Don't like getting a foreigner you can't understand and who can't understand you when you call tech support? Dell computers has a deal for you! If you'll pay them $13 a month extra on your tech support contract, you can talk to someone who speaks English.

A Dell spokesman says this new plan demonstrates Dell's commitment to customer choice. "We've heard from customers that it's hard to understand a particular accent and that they couldn't understand the instructions they were getting."

So, Dell is catering to your choice -- unless you want to pony up the extra $13 a month, you're still going to be talking to someone in India or the Philippines who barely speaks English. Is it just me, or does it seem the whole world has lost its common sense?

"Plainer English for a fee." The Dallas Morning News; December 14, 2008; p. 4D.

Duh!

A recent study by the Rand Corporation, described as "ground-breaking research," reveals that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behavior than among those who don't. Well, Duh! Wonder how many of our taxpayer dollars funded grants for this "research"?

"Study links racy TV to youths' choices." The Dallas Morning News; November 3, 2008; p. 6A.