Call me a cradle-to-grave Catholic, but I am astonished, bewildered, flabbergasted, perplexed, even po’d with some Catholic politicians making a mockery of my faith.

Former Congressional Speaker of the House Democrat Nancy Pelosi (a Catholic supposedly) of far-left-liberal northern California, recently got the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. Need I mention that PP is an abortion mill? Need I mention Ms. Sanger, the infamous eugenist, has no moral qualms about abortions. Need I mention the Catholic Church is dead-set “against” abortions?

Ms. Pelosi (while accepting the wolf in sheep’s clothing award) said pro-lifers were dumb. That, of course, includes Catholics. Then she follows that up with sending a rosary to be blessed by Pope Francis through Obama during his visit to the Vatican. No, Nancy, Pope Francis is not a liberal as some liberal media tried to make him out to be on same sex marriage – and abortion.

Before going any further, let me say there are many protestant denominations that I greatly admire who are just as adamant about pro-life and traditional marriage as my chosen church. The evangelical movement is alive and well and playing a major role in trying to put the brakes on an out of control secular culture. Evangelicals are working hard to restore Christianity in this country as we have known it since the American Revolution while liberals (even Dem politicians) are working like crazy to do just the opposite.

The Nancy Pelosis of my church have got to go! Calling herself a Catholic is hypocrisy, and church leadership has got to do more about it.

Sad to say, there are a whole bunch of Catholic Pelosi clones in our government. There’s Vice President Joe Biden who had high praise for China’s one child mass abortions policy. There’s Secretary of State John Kerry who supports abortion and would not support the Defense of Marriage Act no more than does Obama. Senators Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden and deceased Ted Kennedy were on the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2005 when Catholic John Roberts was up for nomination to the Supreme Court. And, would you believe those four CINOs (Catholics in name only) screamed and hollered not to accept Roberts for fear “Catholic” Roberts would overturn Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion. Go figure!

Ironically, had the aforementioned group succeeded in nixing John Robert’s nomination, this country would be better off for it.  Roberts became another liberal as he schemed to find an excuse to make ObamaCare constitutional by calling it a tax. OC, thanks to Roberts, takes away the religious rights of those not wanting to pay for birth control, or worst of all abortions.  The 70 some lawsuits against OC being unconstitutional on religious grounds could have been avoided had Roberts voted with his conservative colleagues instead of the liberals, which included another CINO on the court by the name of Sotomayor.

All Christian pro lifers and traditional marriage advocates should be up in arms about all the liberal politicians standing this country on its head culturally.  If killing the unborn, and marriage of any kind imaginable, isn’t destroying our culture I don’t know what is?  Need I say which political party is destroying our great culture of the past – and sadly it’s with the help of too many that claim to be Catholic.

I would be remiss not to mention CINO Sebelius, former governor of Kansas and former friend of late-term abortionist George Killer Tiller. Our retired U.S. Secretary of Health and Inhuman Services Sebelius, with the help of Barack Obama, has decimated the First Amendment of our Constitution. Why in the world would a person claiming to be Catholic force other Catholics (or other religious groups) to support birth control — and abortions — through ObamaCare?

What can our government of today give us that could possibly be more important than life and family? Three million babies a year lose their lives and will never experience family.

Les Knoll lives in Victoria and Gilbert, Ariz.

June is the most popular month for weddings in Kansas. While many brides and grooms are walking down the aisle for the very first time this month, others are getting married for the second time, or more.

Most people want a marriage that will last a lifetime. Unfortunately, couples entering their first marriage have approximately a 50 percent chance of getting divorced. Remarriage carries an even greater risk.  The divorce rate for second marriages, when only one partner has children, is over 65 percent. When both partners have children, the rate rises to 70 percent.

Why is there such a risk for remarried couples? Compared to first marriages, studies show that remarriages tend to include more individuals who may have personality characteristics that increase their likelihood for divorce (such as immaturity, impulsivity, poor judgement and so on.) Also, more remarried people often see divorce as an option for ending marital problems than do couples in first marriages.

It’s not all doom and gloom, though. Remarriages can be successful. Although problems will most certainly arise, it’s important to remember that remarriages need the same effective and consistent nurturing as first marriages. Here are some characteristics of successful remarried families from the family experts at K-State Research and Extension:

• Successful remarried couples have mourned their losses. When couples remarry, they may have already been through many changes from death or divorce. They may have to grieve the loss of a previous marriage, the loss of a partner, the loss of a dream. When past grief is resolved, there may be less hostility with former partners and, as a result, children may be more likely to build a relationship with a stepparent.

• Successful remarried couples have realistic expectations. When couples remarry, they may know more about what to expect from marriage. Partners may make a stronger commitment to the new marriage and work harder to make sure it works. Realistic couples realize there isn’t necessarily “instant love” between new family members. They know it takes time and patience to build new relationships.

• Successful remarried couples have a strong couple bond. Couples realize that love alone is not enough. They nurture their relationship by taking care of their needs for fun, relaxation and togetherness as a couple.

• Successful remarried couples establish new family traditions. When two families come together, it’s hard not to feel that one way of doing something is right and the other way is wrong. Successful remarried families recognize that preferences are just different, not better or worse. Starting new traditions or combining routines and old traditions from both households can enrich the new family.

• Successful remarried couples deal positively with past relationships. When couples work to reduce hostilities between former spouses, it can also enhance the marital quality of the new marriage.

• Successful remarried families accept the changes in their household.  Partners acknowledge that relationships with step children are just forming and shouldn’t be rushed or forced. Remarried couples also recognize that stepchildren are different from their own and have grown up in a different environment. They work together to agree on a set of rules so everyone can cooperate and get along together.

• Successful remarried couples are flexible. They talk about their expectations and work together to manage family demands. When something doesn’t work as planned, they work with each other to think of and try new options.

Remarriage doesn’t guarantee “happily ever after.” Just like any marriage, a remarriage takes time, communication, and commitment. If children are involved, there are additional challenges, complications and potential stresses that families must deal with. Couples in successful remarriages make sure they communicate well and show their love daily to each other, keeping their commitment fresh and strong.

For more information to strengthen remarried families, explore the resources from K-State Research and Extension at www.ksre.ksu.edu/Families/p.aspx?tabid=83. This page features the “Stepping Stones for Stepfamilies” fact sheet and home study course and more resources for stepfamilies. You can also ask for the fact sheet at the Ellis County Extension, 601 Main, Hays, (785) 628-9430.

Linda K. Beech is Ellis County Extension Agent for Family and Consumer Sciences.

In 2011, our Career Technical Education program had 3,400 students enrolled. This year, more than 8,000 high school students participated in CTE, earning an industry-recognized certificate in addition to a high school diploma — a 236 percent increase in just four years.

Students enrolled in the CTE program are taking an important step in building their futures. By attending courses at local community colleges and accredited technical schools, they are gaining a marketable skill they can rely on for the rest of their lives and becoming the skilled workforce needed to fill jobs right here in Kansas.

The state pays the cost of tuition for students participating in the program. In addition, school districts are rewarded with a $1,000 payment for each student who successfully completes the program. Last year, the state awarded $703,000 to 111 school districts for students who successfully completed the program.

This year, the state will award a total of $1.18 million to 135 school districts for successfully motivating students to complete their high school education and graduate ready for a career or continued education.

This year, the Olathe School District was awarded $78,000 – the largest of any award given – recognizing the achievements of its students. Olathe had more than twice as many students in the CTE program than any other school district.

The CTE program is encouraging students to remain in high school and providing them with an opportunity to develop skills to find a good job.

I thank the Legislature, Board of Regents and Department of Education, for their support of this program.

Sam Brownback is governor of Kansas.

Whoa, that was close. The National Rifle Association nearly shot itself in the foot recently with a common-sense editorial it posted online.

The group of rootin’-tootin’, bullet-spittin’, doctrinaire, guns-everywhere extremists finally saw something involving firearms that even it considered too extreme. In Texas (naturally), worshippers of the glorious gun god have taken to shouting out their ideological absolutism in coffee shops, museums, chain restaurants and other public places by having a dozen or more of their ilk walk in together with shotguns, assault rifles and other weaponry strapped onto them.

“Any gun, anywhere,” is their message, expressed in an unsubtle, don’t-mess-with-us swagger.

“Scary,” exclaimed the NRA editorial, calling the macho show counterproductive to the cause of gun rights, adding that such peacocking is downright “weird.” That is, of course, a sane response.

But sanity isn’t comfortable turf for gun dogmatists. The NRA soon got hit with a barrage of fire from its own ranks, plus an explosion of rage from gun groups that are — believe it or not — even gunnier than the NRA.

So the big, bad, never-surrender rifle organization quickly threw in the towel. It recanted its momentary lapse into sanity, and cravenly blamed some unnamed lowly staffer for the ideological impurity.

The upshot is you can expect to see newly sanctioned NRA gun strutters parading into cafes near you. But let me ask this: How would those strutters react if a band of African-Americans or Latinos were to stride into one of their cafes, armed to the teeth?

I’m with the president on this one: “There’s no reason,” he said, “why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

Oh, that wasn’t Barack Obama. It was Ronald Reagan, in 1967 — back when he served as the governor of California.

OtherWords.org columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer and public speaker.

Dear Dave,
You recommend that no more than 25 percent of your monthly income go toward a house payment. Does this figure include taxes and insurance too?
Ryan

Dear Ryan,
Yes, it does. Your housing payment should not exceed 25 percent of your monthly take-home pay on a 15-year, fixed-rate mortgage.
When it comes to buying a house, the goal is not to live in the Taj Mahal or have something so expensive you end up being “house poor.” When buying a home, especially for first-time homebuyers, you should look for something nice — in a decent area — that you can get paid off as quickly as possible.
It’s really not a big deal if you cheat a couple of percentage points one way or the other. But 25 percent is a good rule of thumb to ensure you’ll still have money left over to live on, save and invest!
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He has authored five New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover, EntreLeadership and Smart Money Smart Kids. His newest best-seller, Smart Money Smart Kids, was written with his daughter Rachel Cruze, and recently debuted at #1. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 8 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

Remember all that talk you hear about “local control” and government “that is closer to the people” being the best government?

Lots of talk like that at the Statehouse, because at some point, the Legislature or the whole state is “closer to the people” than, say, Congress.

Well, now comes that other clever little phrase that echoes through the historic halls of the Statehouse: “That’s different…”

Here’s what’s “different” this year:

Local  units of government that levy property taxes—that’s cities, counties, townships, community colleges, municipal universities and even drainage districts—starting July 1 will not be able to keep their property tax mill levies the same and receive any more money than the Consumer Price Index inflation indicator allows without telling their constituents what’s going on.

It’s a way—especially as in much of the state property values are finally starting to rise—to prevent property tax-levying local units of government from spending more money (in excess of the rate of inflation) while proclaiming that they haven’t raised taxes. That upward trend of property valuation means property taxes are starting to yield increases in actual dollars to local units of government.

So, if districts keep their property tax levies the same, just receive more than the inflation-adjusted increase in dollars from it, they have to publish their action.

And, property taxes being universally regarded as the most-hated taxes on the books, it probably means that, except for maybe robbing a liquor store, it’s the worst way for a public official to wind up in the newspaper.

(But, the governing body just has to publish as an official notice of their action, and while some legislators liked the idea, the new law doesn’t require mugshots of those tax-raisers to be published.)

The idea, of course, is to hold down local government spending, essentially through the process of bad publicity.

Now, if state revenues increase (above inflation) as a result of sales or income or even liquor taxes, you don’t see legislators taking a public drubbing for that.

It’s just the local officials elected by the same voters who elected legislators to office who have to admit that their taxes are bringing in more money than expected.

See… It’s the “that’s different” phrase at work here.

It probably would have been easier for legislators to just freeze property tax for all local units of government. That would have meant less local spending on parks, swimming pools, police, streets and the like.

But…that would have looked like legislative meddling with “local control” of units of government that are “closer to the people,” don’t you think?

No, cities and counties didn’t like the idea, and they worked during the legislative session to pare down some provisions—and see the inflation adjustment added—but this new law might just change the atmosphere at city hall, the courthouse or the school district.

It might make folks pay a little more attention to local government spending instead of just seeing that the mill levy hasn’t risen, and figure they lucked out.

This local control? Well, we’ll see how well the locals like it and we’ll see what happens to local officials who vote for budgets that include that little notice that puts them on record actually increasing local spending…if they choose to.

Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka, Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report. To learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit www.hawvernews.com.

Dear Dave,
I’m 24-years old, and just got married two months ago. We make $80,000 a year, and have our emergency fund in place with no debt. Plus, we’ve saved up for a 15 percent down payment on a house. I know you suggest 20 percent, but is 15 percent okay?
Tony

Dear Tony,
I don’t have a big problem with 15 percent instead of 20 percent. Chances are you’ll end up having to pay private mortgage insurance, but it sounds like you guys are in good enough shape financially to handle things.

I generally recommend, however, that couples wait until they’ve been married at least a year before buying a home. Buying a house is huge decision. That’s why I think it’s smart to wait and get to know each other even better, and on a day-to-day basis, before moving in this direction.

Take your time and don’t rush things, Tony. There will still be good deals on the market in a year or so. Plus, you’ll be able to save more money!
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He has authored five New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover, EntreLeadership and Smart Money Smart Kids. His newest best-seller, Smart Money Smart Kids, was written with his daughter Rachel Cruze, and recently debuted at #1. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 8 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

When we say something that might be threatening, how much does where we say it matter?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to examine that question from a new angle — the increasingly popular method of online comments and posts on social media, as distinct from directed or face-to-face exchanges.

The First Amendment generally shields us from being punished for what we say, but there are exceptions, among them what is called a “true threat.”

Courts have used two approaches in dealing with threats. One requires police and prosecutors to show that the person making the threat genuinely intended harm. The other — and one used more often in recent years — is whether “a reasonable person” would be put in genuine fear for their safety or their life.

Threats also need to be real to meet these tests. Wishing aloud that a certain person would be struck by a meteor, for example, may be crude and tactless, but clearly the speaker cannot make that occur. Threats must also be made to a certain person or identifiable group.

Threatening to kill someone during a face-to-face argument, or via a letter or phone call, very likely would warrant prosecution.

But now it seems the court will come face-to-face with a technological twist — one that will ask them to further define or finally endorse one of the two legal standards: What if the threats are comments or posts on a social network like Facebook? Are such posts — not specifically sent to a person, who may be named — enough to support a “reasonable person” standard?

The court may well also consider what to make of the distinctions based in individual privacy settings on various social media websites, which can range from posts that are totally public, through layers in which posts are directed to individuals’ accounts or small group “walls” but still public, to directed posts that are more like a personal email or phone call.

The case before the court involves a husband and wife who separated in 2010. Court records say that Anthony Elonis sometime later began writing on his Facebook page about killing his wife and others, including an FBI agent who was investigating his actions.

Elonis later defended his posts as just “therapeutic,” even art in the style of rap lyrics, and claimed they did not meet the legal requirements of a “true threat.” However, when the gory postings continued, and the subjects of his rants felt threatened, Elonis was convicted of violating a federal law that prohibits the use of interstate communications for threats to individuals, and sentenced to nearly four years in prison.

Elonis says he never actually intended to harm anyone, and that the existing law was drawn up in a pre-internet era, and ought to now be adjusted to recognize a new form of expression, on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Legal scholars and Elonis’ lawyers note that courts even now differ on how and when to apply the two existing standards.

In 2002, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a juvenile court conviction of a high school student for writing rap lyrics it said were a “true threat” of physical violence. In that case, the lyrics were written specifically for a fellow student, delivered to her and she was, the court said, “intensely frightened and upset” by the threat and believed the juvenile might follow through on the threat because he had a criminal record.

But in 2012, a federal appeals court in California refused to reinstate the conviction of an Arizona man accused of planning a Super Bowl massacre, saying a rambling “manifesto” did not constitute a threat to people, since it was addressed to media outlets not specific persons, and that man’s threat to “test the theory that bullets speak louder than words” was not sufficient to support a conviction under federal law.

The Supreme Court arguments will focus on how to apply to Elonis’ arguments the latest decision it made on “true threats.” In 2003, in Virginia v. Black, the Court struck down a state law that held any cross-burning was a form of intimidation, saying proof of “threat of intimidation” was required, since the action could be what the court called a “message of shared ideology.”

In upholding Elonis’ conviction, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said while an action such as cross-burning may or may not always constitute a threat, Elonis’ Facebook posts made specific threats to named individuals — thus avoiding a conflict with Virginia v. Black.

The issue raised by Elonis is whether the online distance that social media puts between the person “speaking” and those “listening” makes all the difference between protection and prosecution.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Washington-based Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center.  The institute’s Megan Chester contributed to this column.

By RON WILSON
Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development

Self-taught art. Visionary art. Primitive art. Outsider art. Naïve art. Recycled art. Trash art. Contemporary folk art. Raw art. Intuitive art. Marginal art.

There are many names worldwide for the type of creative endeavour that I am describing today, but perhaps the best umbrella term might be “grassroots art.” Grassroots art, a term coined by Kansan Greg Blasdal, refers to spontaneous, unique, and sometimes outlandish yard environments. Our state’s center for grassroots art is found in rural Kansas.

Rosslyn Schultz is the director of the Grassroots Arts Center in Lucas, Kansas. She went to K-State and met and married a farmer near Lucas. As a wheat farmer’s wife, she was creating wheat weavings. She found others in Lucas who wanted to promote art in area schools.

Then a unique opportunity came along. A collection of limestone sculptures from Inez Marshall became available. In 1991, local entities at Lucas formed the nonprofit Lucas Arts and Humanities Commission to purchase the Marshall collection.

Inez Marshall had been injured in a serious trucking accident in 1933 and started carving limestone sculptures. She did so for the next 50 years. She displayed her distinctive carved structures at the nearby rural town of Portis, population 120 people. Now, that’s rural.

After Inez Marshall passed, her sculptures went up for auction. Eventually they ended up in Lucas where three downtown limestone buildings were acquired where her collection and other unique types of outsider, recycled art could also be displayed. That was the beginning of the Grassroots Art Center.

Volunteers worked thousands of hours renovating the buildings downtown. In 1995, the Grassroots Arts Center opened in Lucas.

Lucas already had a bit of a reputation for off-beat art, because it was the home of the Garden of Eden – a collection of unusual concrete figures created by eccentric businessman S.P Dinsmoor, as we have previously profiled. However, the Grassroots Art Center has its own collection of remarkable artifacts from contemporary local artists.

It began exhibiting four local artists with yard environments plus the Inez Marshall collection.  Today the Grassroots Arts Center features more than 20 artists in permanent and rotating exhibits.  What is the common theme of these works of art? One description would be quirky. It is truly grassroots, self-taught art, usually created from recyled materials by someone of retirement age.

For example, Herman Divers started making things out of the pulltabs which we used to get off the top of aluminum cans. He created a full-size motorcycle using 179,200 pulltabs. A Model T car is made of hundreds of thousands more. When pulltabs were no longer available, he made things with buttons strung on fishing line.

Jim Dickerman created whimsical figures of people and animals using scrap metal and spare parts from cars, trucks, tractors and farm implements. Janet Fish makes one-of-a-kind dolls from recycled clothing, foam insulation, and more. Farmer Adolph Hanneman carved hundreds of depictions of people’s faces in wood during the last 20 years of his life. M. T. Liggett created more than 500 scrap metal totem poles. At age 84, Warren Ling of Cawker City started carving figures and totems of people from dead trees. Betty Milliken painted hundreds of miniature portraits on chewing gum, dried grapefruit peel and Styrofoam meat trays. Ed Root embellished his farmstead with concrete sculptures embedded with broken glass, stones and metal. All of these artists and other regional environments have been featured at the Grassroots Art Center.

“We’ve never found any two yard environments the same,” Rosslyn Schultz said. “It’s always so interesting. These are genuine Kansans doing their thing. They are creating artwork, not for a commercial market, but to satisfy a creative urge.”

For more information, go to www.grassrootsart.net.

Whatever this is called, it is definitely grassroots. We commend Rosslyn Schultz and all those involved with the Grassroots Art Center for making a difference by honoring these artists and sharing their distinctive works of artistry. They are ordinary people creating extraordinary art.

And there’s more. Lucas is also home to what has been described as the world’s most artsy public toilet. We’ll learn about that next week.