Many were shocked to learn that IRS agents actually targeted conservative advocacy groups for heightened scrutiny when making decisions concerning their tax exempt status. I don't know why so many people were shocked. This is what university administrators have been doing for nearly twenty years. I've been writing about it for over ten years because I know that what you see on the campus today is what you will see in the broader culture tomorrow.
It all began in my home state back in 1995. That was when a gay activist and UNC administrator named Jonathan Curtis targeted the Muslim Student Association (MSA) for de-recognition. He didn't like the MSA position on homosexuality so he decided to yank their status as an official student group.
Jonathan Curtis
According to Curtis' demands, the only way the MSA could remain an official group at UNC would be to change their constitution to be more "inclusive." This de-recognition would have meant that the MSA would receive no university funding even though their members paid mandatory student activity fees. Thankfully, a UNC attorney stopped Curtis from acting on his threats.
When UNC got a new university attorney in 2002, Curtis decided to subject a number of Christian organizations to heightened scrutiny. I have in my possession every single email Curtis sent to the organizations he targeted. It is a stunning display of intolerance in the name of diversity and inclusion. In one email, Curtis told a campus Christian organization they would be derecognized if they did not remove statements from their constitution asserting a "belief in God."
Fortunately, I later found a Christian organization willing to sue. After years of fighting both in and out of court, the practice of interfering with the belief requirements of Christian organizations has ended at UNC Chapel Hill. But for years the cancer spread throughout the broader UNC system.
In 2003, UNC-Wilmington tried to derecognize the College Republicans for refusing to allow Democrats to lead their organization. We fought that battle and won. But as late as 2012, UNCW was still trying to deny official recognition to Christian organizations who wanted to be led by, of all people, Christians. It took a threat of litigation but I managed to get the university to change its policy. Now, UNCW Christian groups can control their membership and their message without government interference. But this basic freedom of association is still in jeopardy on some UNC campuses.
At their core, these assaults on freedom of association have always been assaults on freedom of speech. The campus administrators only target groups that are saying things with which the administration disagrees. The administration is trying to evangelize the student body and bring them into the church of multiculturalism. So they try to eliminate groups that promote any kind of absolute truth or core conservative values.
The IRS has now been caught doing a very similar thing. Their organization collects taxes. They have an interest in big government. So they are naturally hostile toward groups seeking a reduction in the size of government. The source of their motivation is obvious. But where do they get the hubris to act upon the desire to abuse their power?
The answer is simple: they learned it in college.
Is it any wonder that government agents are now showing the same disdain for free speech and freedom of association that has been on display on our nation's campuses since the 1990s?
Things are going to get worse, not better. Just ask the students who are now appearing before rape tribunals on American campuses. They are routinely denied attorneys when they appear before the campus judiciary. They are routinely denied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And now campuses are giving accusers the right to appeal rape acquittals until the judiciary reaches the "right" result.
Americans beware. The students running these rape tribunals are our future prosecutors and our future judges. And they won't just be coming for our taxes. They will be coming for our liberty as well.
According to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, evangelical Christians are now a national security threat. I’m talkin’ at the top of the list folks. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise” eh, Christians?
Under the New Rules enacted by these agencies under this administration’s tutelage the following acts are now to cause red flags of “terrorism” to fly, alerting cops and military personnel to a new group[s] which could start blowing crap up like the other group that we can no longer speak the truth about.
So, herewith, I guess, are some of the characteristics of the “newfangled” terrorists in the United States of Statism.
If you enjoy singing How Great Thou Art and Amazing Grace – you might be a terrorist.
If you say “bless their heart” after you hear that someone did something really, really stupid – you might be a terrorist.
If you believe Jeremiah was a prophet and not a bullfrog – you might be a terrorist.
If you feel obligated to say you’ll pray for someone after you’ve gossiped about them – you might be a terrorist.
If you watched The Bible on the History Channel and thought it was badass – you might be a terrorist.
If you believe it’s wrong and ungodly to hijack airplanes and jam them into skyscrapers full of innocent people – then you might be a terrorist.
If you think Billy Graham has been a great gift to our nation – you might be a terrorist.
If you celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter – you might be a terrorist.
If you made the day you got saved your birthday on your Facebook page verses the day you actually popped out of your mama’s bottom – you might be a terrorist.
If you give money towards the preaching of the gospel and to works of charity – you might be a terrorist.
If you love your neighbor as yourself – you might be a terrorist.
If you recognize, appreciate and wish to pass on to the next generation America’s godly heritage – you might be a terrorist.
If you like the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights – you might be terrorist.
If you have Jesus Take the Wheel on your iPod – you might be a terrorist.
If as a single man, you have told a homely single lady that, “all you’re looking for is a godly woman and that you don't care that she’s not attractive." – you might be a terrorist.
If you believe Jesus is Lord and not the state – you might be a terrorist.
If you raise your kids to be productive, independent and righteous kids who love God and our country and not be narcissistic entitlement hookers – you might be a terrorist.
If you believe love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs and does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth - you might be a terrorist.
If you believe the Golden Rule is a pretty legit tenet to live by – you might be a terrorist.
If you have a fish sticker on your mini van – you might be a terrorist.
If you take umbrage that you would get pitched as a terrorist because all of the aforementioned Christian stuff – well … you might be a terrorist.
Yes my brethren, your love for God and country has caused thou to be deemed a menace to our national progress at least as the Leftists’ deem progress. Congratulations.
On April 4th 2013 we found out that an Army Reserve Training Brief put Evangelicals on the top of the danger list as religious extremists. They put us sola fide boys and girls above Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. To these wizards, Billy and his son Franklin Graham are way scarier than Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his ubiquitous murderous ilk.
Oh, I almost forgot. This brief also crapped on Catholics and Jews. Yes, you too are terror threats to our country according to someone somewhere inside the beltway. I wonder who would be churning out such nonsense like this? Hmmm.
Indeed, according to “them” we must forget the fact that it’s been nutty Muslims that have terrorized us for the last couple of decades and that it’s been radical leftists that have aggressively eroded our constitutional liberties. Parts of our armed forces and police departments have been told to just white all that stuff out and believe that it’s guys like Chuck Norris who are the real hazard that our cops and our military need to be concerned about.
The Bible is not only the world’s most widely distributed book (by the billions), it is also the world’s most widely banned book. That’s because it is not just an eclectic assortment of ancient religious traditions. Rather, it is the ultimate threat to the status quo of prideful, human kingdom building and the definitive collection of divinely inspired revolutionary writings.
With that in mind, here are 7 biblical principles for world changers:
1) “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.” (Matthew 5:13) In the ancient world, salt had a number of different functions, including serving as a preservative. When applied to the followers of Jesus, this speaks of our calling to be the moral conscience of society. But this high calling comes with a serious warning. As New Testament scholar R. V. Tasker explained, if the Lord’s followers are “called to be a moral disinfectant in a world where moral standards are low, constantly changing, or non-existent ... they can discharge this function only if they themselves retain their virtue.” We cannot change the world if we ourselves are not changed.
2) “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. . . . [So] let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14, 16) The greatest problem in America today is not so much the presence of darkness as it is the absence of light. Put another way, it is no surprise that sinful people do sinful things. (Do we really expect carnally-minded Hollywood producers to put out God-glorifying, biblically-based, family-friendly flicks?) And so we can’t be shocked when the darkness is dark. Instead, we who claim to be devoted to God must shine the light brightly, and we must do it in deed and not only in word. This begins with compassionate ministry to the hurting and the poor.
3) “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31) It’s so easy to put our trust in numbers, as if revolutionary change can only happen when our side is in the majority. But even the secular world knows this is not true. As Fidel Castro remarked, “I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I’d do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action.” If that’s what Castro could do with a handful of dedicated men, what could God do with them?
4) “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21) If we become as mean-spirited and hateful as those who oppose us, we have already lost the battle. As Dr. King famously said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” We must set our goals higher by exposing what is wrong and modeling what is right, not by getting dragged down into the dirt.
5) “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1) As the old saying goes, you can win the argument but lose the point (or the person!). Don’t let pride or a quick temper dictate your speech (or your online communication). Step back, get control of your emotions, and reach out rather than attack. You’ll be amazed with the results that you get. (Yes, this is easier said than done, but the rewards are well worth the effort.)
6) “All the nations are as nothing before [God], they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.” (The words of Isaiah, Isaiah 40:17) Remember to keep your perspective. Some of the most ferocious, intimidating leaders of history are nothing more than dust and ashes today, and the Iron Curtain, the Bamboo Curtain, and the Berlin Wall all came down in the last generation. As a historian once observed, two thousand years ago, Nero was considered to be the divine emperor while the apostle Paul was a little known Roman prisoner, soon to be beheaded. Who knew that centuries later, people would call their dogs Nero and their sons Paul?
7) “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33) These words were spoken by Jesus to his disciples shortly before he was betrayed and crucified, and they are as relevant today as ever. Jesus wanted them (and us) to know that no one will be totally exempt from pain or suffering or hardship. But, Jesus added, take heart and be at peace. Just as he overcame every obstacle (including death itself!), we his followers can overcome too. In other words, “We shall overcome” was not just the song of the Civil Rights movement. It is our song too. “For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.” (1 John 5:4)
There are many more principles like these in the Scriptures, but let’s get started by implementing these seven. It will revolutionize our world.
Toby McKeehan, better known by his stage name TobyMac, is a Christian recording artist, music producer, hip-hop/pop artist, singer-songwriter, and author. TobyMac was one of the first and best-known Christian rappers. "City on Our Knees", was released on August 14, 2009. The song reached No. 1 on Billboard's Hot Christian Songs and No. 1 on both Christian AC and CHR.
For the first time in almost six hundred years, a sitting Pope resigned his papacy. Did Pope Benedict make the right decision, and if so, what can we learn from Pope Benedict XVI? Find out on this Trifecta.
Nearly ten years ago, I helped organize a lawsuit against UNC-Chapel Hill. The university was forcing Christians to allow non-Christians to run their organizations. It took me 18 months to find a plaintiff but I did. In case you were wondering, we took the case to federal court and we won. For a time, freedom of association was preserved at North Carolina's flagship university.
But tyranny is a hungry beast ever in need of replenishing itself at the expense of weaker prey. This semester, the predator was once again a UNC public university campus. But I am pleased to report that with the help of Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) we were able to win another freedom of association case. Working together, we won the case without a lawsuit. And we did it in just twelve days.
I am reproducing the email correspondence from that case in order to help others who are interested in challenging universities that knowingly violate the First Amendment. I have departed from my traditional practice of naming names as a reward to the university for backing down and saving the taxpayers from unnecessary litigation. I hope you find the following exchange as well (as my interspersed remarks) helpful:
Ms. (Administrator), it has come to my attention that you have asked Ratio Christi to remove its requirement that officers be Christians.
I need to know immediately and in writing by what authority you propose to force them to abandon their belief requirements.
This matter is urgent and and I expect a prompt written response.
Mike Adams
Thank you for the inquiry. We are in the process of working with these students as they pursue registration as a student organization. As the process is ongoing and in the beginning stages, our office has much work left to do with these students, including the review of Ratio Christi’s constitution, before any final decisions regarding their organizational status are made. We appreciate your concern in this matter and will continue to work with the students to welcome their organization to the campus community.
(Ms. Administrator)
Ms. (Administrator), you have not answered my question. It has come to my attention that you have asked Ratio Christi to remove its requirement that officers be Christians.
I need to know immediately and in writing by what authority you propose to force them to abandon those requirements.
This matter is urgent and I expect a prompt written response. If no response is forthcoming, I will assume the following:
You have attempted to interfere with Ratio Christi's First Amendment right to determine the believe requirements of its officers.
You have done so on your own and not in accordance with any specific (university) policy, office, or individual administrative directive.
I have copied Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I have asked his organization to join my investigation into the matter. The chancellor is copied as well.
Mike Adams
Dr. Adams-
Our staff is still working with the students on the constitution for the establishment of the Ratio Christi student organization. Therefore, your inquiries are premature and your assumptions incorrect. I would encourage you to be patient as we work with these students to develop their organizational constitution and assist them in becoming a recognized student organization. Since the administrative review and process is not yet complete, your inquiries are premature and inappropriate. When the process is complete, I will be happy to respond to any issues you may have with the outcome.
Many thanks,
(Mr. Administrator)
Executive Director of Campus Life
(Mr. Administrator was then hit with a pubIic records request seeking the information his office refused to divulge. He wrote back in less than 48 hours).
Dr. Adams-
Yesterday, (Ms. Administrator) and I met with representatives from the Ratio Christi student organization to discuss their organizational constitution and to assist them in becoming a recognized student organization. Unbeknownst to (Ms. Administrator) the (university) Office of Student Life has been reviewing its non-exclusionary membership clause in its student organization constitution template prior to your recent e-mails. During the meeting, I provided Ratio Christi with the following updated language for their inclusion in the constitution:
***
“ Student groups that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the group to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the group and agree with its beliefs …”
***
As I mentioned to you in my previous correspondence, the administrative review and process is not yet complete, but I believe that any issues have been resolved. When the process is complete, I will be happy to respond to any issues you may have with the outcome.
Many thanks,
(Mr. Administrator)
Anyone reading the previous exchange can see what happened here. The university tried to deprive students of their First Amendment freedom of association rights by leveraging the power of their office to control funds through the group recognition process. When they were caught and called out on it, they responded with predictably self-righteous indignation. But one official legal document -a public records request suggesting the prospect of litigation - jolted them back into reality (and civility).
After some reflection on the matter, the university decided to move forward with a quick change in policy in order to avoid litigation. There is little reason to believe they were actually contemplating any sort of policy change "in (their) student organization constitution template prior to (my) recent e-mails." Administrators simply cannot be trusted. But that is not the point of the present column. The point of the column is rather obvious: to teach readers all it takes to change an unconstitutional policy is one maverick professor working in conjunction with one FIRE attorney.
The question is: where are all the maverick professors? And why are they so afraid of their employers despite the protection of tenure?
In comments made before the presidential debate this past Tuesday, Chris Matthews claimed that Gov. Romney’s position on abortion was “almost like Sharia,” stating, “You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief.” In doing so, Matthews repeated the common leftwing libel that conservative moral principles with a basis in religious beliefs are equivalent to radical Islam.
In May, Rev. Billy Graham took out full page ads in North Carolina newspapers stating in part, “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment.”
Gay activist Wayne Besen responded by asking, “Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia?” (Note to the reader: This was meant to be taken seriously.) “Do we all have to follow his version of the Bible or be punished by government? And if this is the case, are we really a free country? Are we really much different than Iran, or is it only by a matter of degrees or a matter of time until these so-called ‘Christian Supremacists’ get their paws on all of our laws?”
Markos Moulitsas, founder of the radically left-leaning DailyKos.com, published an entire book on these themes in 2010, entitled American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right. In the Introduction he wrote, “the Republican Party, and the entire modern conservative movement is, in fact, very much like the Taliban. In their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban. . . . the Republican Party, and the entire modern conservative movement is, in fact, very much like the Taliban. In their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban.” (Additional note to the reader: This book is not intended to be a spoof on the left, a la the old Mad Magazine parodies. It too is meant to be taken seriously, even if it does make for some unintended comedic reading.)
Already in May, 2005, John McCandlish Phillips, formerly a Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter, penned a telling article in the Washington Post: “I have been looking at myself, and millions of my brethren, fellow evangelicals along with traditional Catholics, in a ghastly arcade mirror lately -- courtesy of this newspaper and the New York Times. Readers have been assured, among other dreadful things, that we are living in ‘a theocracy’ and that this theocratic federal state has reached the dire level of -- hold your breath -- a ‘jihad.’”
He observed that, just days earlier, “Frank Rich, an often acute, broadly knowledgeable and witty cultural observer, sweepingly informed us that, under the effects of ‘the God racket’ as now pursued in Washington, ‘government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma.’ He went on to tell Times readers that GOP zealots in Congress and the White House have edged our country over into ‘a full-scale jihad.’”
Bringing us back to reality, Phillips noted that, “If any ‘emboldened minority’ is aiming to ‘remake America according to its dogma,’ it seems to many evangelicals and Catholics that it is the vanguard wanting, say, the compact of marriage to be stretched in its historic definition to include men cohabiting with men and women with women. That is, in terms of the history of this nation, a most pronounced and revolutionary novelty.”
But that is the voice of clearheaded, rational thinking. In the world of Chris Matthews, if you argue that a baby in the womb, upon conception, is entitled to personhood status, you are espousing a position “almost like Sharia,” which Matthews sums up by exclaiming, “This is extremism!” Indeed, for Matthews, in the early stages of pregnancy, we are certainly not dealing with a baby in the womb, let alone “a fetus,” but “rather an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.”
So, the high regard for life and the protection of the innocent that fuels the Republican platform on abortion is nothing more than Sharia-like extremism. (To repeat once more, this is meant to be taken seriously.)
The good news is that the more these leftwing commentators play their “Jihadist, Sharia, Taliban” card, the more the absurdity of their positions will be revealed. The bad news is that a considerable number of listeners and readers will continue to believe them.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile if some wealthy benefactor could pay for Matthews, Besen, Moulitsas, Rich and their ilk to spend six months, all expenses paid, living in a country like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where the hanging of gays and the beheading of adulterers is commonly practiced (and fully sanctioned) under Sharia Law, and where conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by death.
Perhaps they could even write their columns or do their broadcasts from there (that is, if the prisons would allow them to after their arrests).
Man, don’t cha love how the Insane Stream Media and their soft-brain disciples make Christians out to be fish-stickered, bug-eyed equals to incensed Islam? If you were to accept what the White House, some atheists and prattling gay activists say about Christians as true, you’d think the Church is chomping at the bit to chop off some heads of unbelievers, glory to Gawd!
Yep, if you were to believe the barf belched out by the BS brokers on the ludicrous Left, you’d stagger away stupid with the belief that there is little disparity between conservative Christians and militant Muslims.
As a matter of fact, you probably would be bamboozled into believing that Islam is a peaceful, Little House on the Prairie religion being temporarily hijacked by Jihadist renegades, and Christianity … Christianity is the real vicious, charity-vacant cult that’s vying for the opportunity to seize the whip and whip us good.
Yes, the Insane Stream Media’s reality stylists are working their butts off trying to convince us TV-addled cattle of two primary things: 1) Violent jihad is not based on the Koran, and 2) All conservative Christians are theocrats ready to burn Elton John at the stake, stone Snooki in a nearby gravel pit and governmentally ramrod Christianity down everyone’s pie hole.
I haven’t seen this kind of ham-fisted, farcical façade foisted upon the public since Michael Jackson tried to make out with Lisa Marie in an attempt to convince us all he’d found true love in an adult of the opposite sex.
Look, there’s no denying violent things have been done by the Church and in the name of God, but that has been the exception and not the rule. In addition, when the Church has spent time with its head up its butt doing bogus things, the Church’s leaders have historically owned it when wrong, have not repeated the gaffe, have grabbed the wheel and have effectively steered saints out of any erroneous, detrimental ditch.
Not so with Islam.
In Robert Spencer’s book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Bob shows those who can still be shown anything factual the massive and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. They are not equal no matter how much the blatherers of political correctness purport them to be. Their beliefs are not similar, nor their practices, nor their means of spreading their message—and to think otherwise could cost you your ass.
Spencer points out the crystal clear facts that clash with the current anti-Christian hype, such as …
Most Muslims do not condemn jihad.
Christianity and Islam have neither similar traditions nor similar modern realities.
Christian religious violence, real or imagined, does not mitigate the reality of jihad.
A “Christian theocracy” in America is a figment of the Left’s imagination.
The Islamic world has never developed the distinction between religious and secular law that is inherent in Christianity.
Christianity has embraced reason—and Islam has embraced … “Silence! I kill you!”
The Koran does not invite interpretation, and Muslim leaders refuse to discuss how to fit their beliefs into modern society.
Youtube flicks, Political differences and unwanted international interference are not, in fact, the cause of the turmoil in Iraq and Middle Eastern antagonism toward the west.
Jews, Christians and peoples of other faiths (or no faiths) are equally at risk from militant Islam—especially gays and women.
The most determined enemies of western civilization may not be the jihadists at all, but the leftists who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists.
Listen, 21st century truth reconstructors … you’ve gotta relax. Please do us all a favor and go get healed from your bad Sunday school experience and lay down your church-grinding axe. Thinking people aren’t buying the “Christianity = Islam” smack.
Get real, Goofy. You and I both know that regardless of what a few loopy CINOs (Christians in name only) have done via violence in the name of the Father, it’s not in the body of Christian doctrine to hack off the noggin of the obstreperous. There’s not even an obscure passage in the Book of Revelation that some demented clod could twist like your Gumby doll to make Christian Scripture green-light your demise or anyone else’s. Additionally, Christians aren’t longing for TBN to replace D.C. as our nation’s headquarters.
So chill, you shrill shredders of Christianity.
On the flip side, it is within the pages of the Koran to convert, conquer or kill non-Islamic people. And I’m a thinkin’ that no matter how much you work to besmirch Christianity and misinform the public on behalf of militant Islam, that if said Muslims had it their way, you would be a deceased grease stain on God’s green earth.
Therefore, gay guy, loosen that neckerchief and relax on the anti-Christian rhetoric, okay? Atheists, dial down and go back to studying monkeys (or whatever you do), and secularists, switch to decaf and exhale because you guys are barking up the wrong tree in trying to paint Christians as a coercive, could-be-violent cabal like militant Islam.
If you are an outspoken Christian in America, you need to be concerned. If you are an outspoken Christian in America who happens to be a gun owner, you need to be very concerned. And if you are a Christian gun owner who disagrees with the Progressive anti-Christian agenda in America and have a platform to inform others, you better believe that you are under intense scrutiny. Sound like paranoid propaganda? Read on.
It’s one thing to say that there is a war against Christianity and an active agenda to disarm Americans, but it’s another thing altogether to watch it unfold, up close and personal. And yet another to actually document an insidious but effective tactic that is presently being used to silence and disarm Christians right here in America. In this report, I will expose a new tactic being used by the atheistic communist supporters of the Obama regime to silence Christian critics and to disarm them at the same time.
I might have never known about this had it not been for our nightly radio program, the Hagmann & Hagmann Report. In fact, our show played a minor role in the events that transpired. Jason Ergoff, a 28-year old web designer and graphics artist from Scranton, Pennsylvania, called in to our show last week to comment on current events, including how Christianity seems to be under attack in America and across the globe. From the statements made by the CEO of Chick Fil-A regarding traditional families as defined by the Bible to the resurgence of attacks on Christians across the Middle East as a result of the “Arab Spring,” we conversed about how Christians are in the crosshairs now more than any other time in recent history. We talked about Barack Hussein Obama’s role in what seems to be overt antagonism toward Christianity and Biblical principles. Mr. Ergoff’s input to our show was a rational and welcome discourse about the events we see unfolding.
Mr. Ergoff called our program before and has always been articulate and well informed. His call last week was equally articulate and without unnecessary emotion or hype, just like his previous calls. He made his points in a very well-reasoned, rational and non-threatening manner and said nothing with which we could disagree.
Through our dialogue that included off air correspondence, we were delighted to learn that Mr. Egroff himself is hosting his own weekly radio program called Revelation News Radio, a show that provides his analysis of current events through the prism of the Holy Bible. As he is just getting started, he did a few shows leading up his weekly slot, including a show on August 7, 2012, a day after he called our program as a guest. After his call to our program, we moved on, and our program concluded without incident. This is when events began to get very interesting, and go very wrong for Mr. Egroff.
Monitoring the watchmen
As Mr. Egroff was seated at his computer preparing to listen to our program that began at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 8, 2012, he received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as “Officer Steve” from the city of Scranton Police Department, who told Jason that he was calling just to check on him, to see if he was “alright.” Jason, who never heard of “Officer Steve,” or really understood the nature of the call, responded that he was fine and had no problems where he might need the police. He was taken off guard by the call and became uneasy, especially since the officer was elusive in providing a legitimate reason for the call.
While our broadcast was playing on Jason’s computer, he received another telephone call from a “restricted” number. It was “Officer Steve” again, although this time he was calling from the front porch of Mr. Ergoff’s house. The officer reintroduced himself, and asked Jason to turn on the porch light and step outside as he wanted to speak to him. Knowing that he had done nothing wrong, Jason complied with the officer’s request. As he stepped onto the porch, “Officer Steve” was there to meet him, accompanied by another law enforcement officer.
I should note that Jason Ergoff is not stupid or naive, and sensed that had he not complied with the officer’s request, things might have gotten ugly. “It was a matter of choosing my battles,” he told me, but he was still not quite ready for what happened next.
The officer told Jason that the Scranton Police Department received a telephone call from a “friend” living in New York City who claimed to be concerned about Jason’s mental health. This friend works as a physical therapy assistant at a large New York City hospital. It is important to note his “friend’s” professional position is well outside of the mental health practice.
According to the officer, Jason’s friend contacted his department, and claimed that he was “worried” about him, citing his recent talk about the Bible in general, Biblical prophecy in particular, and the role of the Obama regime in the larger picture detailed by prophecy. This “friend” has been listening to Jason’s calls to The Hagmann & Hagmann Report as well as Jason’s own recently started BTR radio show.
Additionally, Jason’s friend knew that he owns a couple of guns, none that are of much monetary value or the type people intent on doing harm would possess. Despite this, his friend expressed concern that Jason could possibly use the weapons in some nefarious manner. Based on Jason’s own admission, he rarely uses the guns to target practice and has little attachment to them. During my interview with Jason, he said that he did not care if he had a gun or not, they are simply not that important to him.
“You need to come with us”
The officer told Jason that he had to go with them based on a mental health complaint that originated solely from his friend, the physical therapist assistant in New York, who claimed that he was worried for Jason’s safety. At this point, Jason was under the control of the officers, and was not permitted to be alone as he entered his house to shut things down for the trip he was about to take.
The officers took Jason to the local hospital psychiatric ward for “evaluation.” For the next 18 hours, he was subjected to some of the most humiliating searches, probes, and questions by hospital personnel. Questions included those specific to his religious faith and what he thought about the government and Obama. Questions that were structured in such a manner that regardless of the answer, they would result in portraying him as a dangerous, gun-owning Christian zealot. All as a result of Jason expressing his non-violent, well reasoned, and articulate views on our show as well as his own. All ostensibly from the concern of one “friend” from another state and well over 100 miles away.
Jason Ergoff was indeed evaluated by two medical health professionals. Despite the manner in which Mr. Ergoff was picked-up, detained, probed, prodded and interviewed (some might call it an interrogation), he remained calm and did his best to comply. He believed that the medical professionals would find him in good mental health and realize that this was all a mistake. He could then use his experience to help others.
Christianity: the medical diagnosis of psychosis
Jason was indeed released after about 20 hours of evaluation. He was given his belt and shoelaces back, and all of his personal belongings taken from him upon admission. He was released without fanfare, without apology, and without explanation. But with little additional interaction, Jason was now labeled with the medical diagnosis of “psychosis” and urged to take medication that he states he does not need and does not want. Additionally, Jason was released under the condition that he gets rid of any and all firearms he owns and report to a crisis counseling center upon discharge.
This gets a bit more interesting when Jason, who felt it best to accommodate the evaluating doctors, reported to the crisis counseling center as instructed. Mr. Ergoff furnished the handful of paperwork to the crisis center worker who spent a few minutes looking over the documents. After a lengthy pause, she looked at Jason and made the following chilling observation as if it was a matter of routine: “So, you’re here because of your religious beliefs.” As Jason tells it, this was not a question, but a statement of fact.
As a career investigator, I’ve been exposed to people with mental health issues, and interviewed many. I know that it’s easy to be fooled, and that a person might appear normal, say the correct things, but then turn out to be a complete lunatic. I’ll admit that in Jason’s case, I expected to find just that scenario. I conducted a lengthy interview with Jason, asked him some very personal questions, and demanded to see documentation related to this incident. I was not about to get fooled by Jason or anyone else. To his credit, Mr. Ergoff complied with my every request and provided me with the hospital documentation I requested.
Watching the watchers who are watching the ‘watchmen’
After spending two days of constant research and investigation into his case alone, I must report here that there is something very wrong about this case, and it’s not Jason Ergoff. Despite the diagnosis of “psychosis,” he was permitted to keep his guns, at least for now. As for his “friend” who was so worried about his welfare, I’ve got his “number.” You see, one thing I did not tell Mr. Ergoff is that I was able to learn the identity of the man who turned him in as a threat to himself and society. I’ve tracked his IP addresses and his online activity. My investigation found that this is no ordinary case of someone being concerned about a friend’s welfare, but part of a larger agenda to silence the Christian conservatives and critics of this administration. I am holding that information and documentation closely, as I feel that Jason and perhaps others might need it when they come for his guns or even him once again.
By the way, the concerned friend showed just where his concern actually lies, and it certainly does not appear to be with Jason. That was clearly illustrated in a 3:00 a.m. phone call made to Jason by his friend, where he screamed at Jason for daring to mention the incident on our program, sans names, of course.
Lest you think this is an isolated case, I have since heard from five-(5) other individuals in different parts of the U.S. that this has happened to within the last thirty-(30) days. It appears the war against freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, openly professing one’s belief in God and the right to bear arms is now sufficient to earn you a medical diagnosis of “psychosis.”
The media has been giving gold medal Olympian Gabby Douglas a difficult time. Zo wants to know why conservatives are not doing more to defend her. Could it be that liberals dislike her because of her Christian faith? Hear what Zo has to say.
The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.
Let’s beat them at their own game.
To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.
Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.
Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?
In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.
One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.
Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.
Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?
It’s definitely not your father’s USA.
Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?
Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.
That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”
Baloney.
If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.
So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.
But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).
“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”
“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”
Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.
Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.
Don’t let them halt the second.
We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.
Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.
Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”
Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.
Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?
The possibilities are limitless.
Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”
Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.
The current hate campaign being waged by homosexual activists against fast food chain Chick-fil-A, because of the firm’s Christian values, may well turn out to be a bridge too far. The effort may prove to be a setback for homosexual activism.
The vile attacks on the firm and its owners, the Cathy family, should make clear, finally, that the “gay rights” movement is not about refining and advancing American freedom, but about rewriting American values and advancing, not freedom, but the homosexual political agenda.
Recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at a flag raising ceremony in Alexandria, Egypt, noting the re-opening of the American consulate there. Given the current political climate in Egypt, the Secretary of State felt behooved in her remarks to highlight principles of freedom as understood by Americans.
“….to us, real democracy means that every citizen has the right to live, work, and worship as they choose, whether they are man or woman, Muslim or Christian, or from any other background.”
Perhaps Secretary Clinton should be lecturing Americans instead of Egyptians.
Can it really be that in America today a businessman can be labeled a bigot, boycotted, and cut off by suppliers because of the crime of being a Christian?
When Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy made his now famous incendiary admission that “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” he was not pontificating. He was responding to a question in an interview done in a paper I expect not read by many homosexuals – the Baptist Press.
Never mind. It was sufficient provocation that Cathy publicly admitted that the Bible defines his understanding of marriage – the unique bond of man and woman – which also happens to be the standard definition in dictionaries on the shelves of every American home and library.
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values,” said Chicago Mayor, and former chief of staff to President Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel. Emmanuel defended Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno’s threat to deny Chick-fil-A permitting in Chicago because its owner supports traditional marriage and family.
But UCLA law professor and constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out in his blog that “denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation.”
The Constitution? The First Amendment? Religious liberty? Do these apply to Christians?
Volokh goes on to point out that a permit might be denied, “…if Chick-fil-A actually discriminated in their serving or hiring decisions in Chicago in a way forbidden by Chicago or Illinois law….But the stories give no evidence of such actions…”
The fact that there is no evidence that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its business practices did not deter Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank from writing that Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage “…implied that gay people (not to mention divorced people) had no business eating at Chick-fil-A.”
One court decision after another over the last fifty years has, step by step, purged any hint of religion and traditional values from our schools and public spaces.
Has it made this a fairer, better, freer nation? If you think breakdown of family, forty percent out-of-wedlock births, a million abortions a year, $16 trillion in national debt, and government dependence is better and freer, yes.
Of course society must embrace civility, respect and tolerance. But this doesn’t mean that the sexual proclivities of some should provide license to rewrite our language and the traditions that define our faith and virtue.
Hopefully many will respond to Mike Huckabee’s appeal to patronize Chick-fil-A on August 1 as a display of support for traditional Christian values and as a reminder that our Constitution protects religious freedom.
Have we really gotten to the point where being a Christian is considered un-American?
A British hotel replaces the in-room Gideon Bibles with copies of Fifty Shades of Grey (aka Mommy porn). A Christian organization is banned by the Advertising Standards Authority from announcing that God can heal sickness today. And a recent poll indicates that only 37% of people in England say they have always believed in God, as opposed to 81% of Americans. Christian England, what has become of you?
The hotel in question was the Damson Dene Hotel in Cumbria, Northwest England, and the idea to replace the Bibles with the racy novel came earlier this month from Wayne Bartholomew, general manager of the hotel and “reportedly a choir member at his local church.” (One wonders what kind of church Mr. Bartholomew attends.)
But that is just one hotel, and there was some outrage over the general manager’s decision. What happened to a Christian group in Bath England in February was far more telling. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a ministry named Healing on the Streets Bath from announcing on its website and in leaflets that God can heal today, ruling that “this is a ‘misleading’ ad which could sow ‘false hope’ amongst sections of the public.” And the ASA made this decision despite the fact that the message of healing in Jesus’ name is as old as the Gospels while the group simply offered to pray for sick people without making any guarantees. (Saying “can” is different than saying “will.”)
Cutting-edge columnist Brendan O'Neill could not resist taking a swipe at the ASA’s ban, writing, “The ASA has been itching to ban the words ‘God heals’ for quite a while. Last June, it rapped the knuckles of a church in Nottingham for putting up a poster that said ‘God can heal you today!’ after the church was grassed up to the ASA by some snitch in Nottingham’s Secular Society. And now it has actually banned a Christian group from proselytising about God’s healing powers. What next? Should we ban groups from declaring that ‘Jesus loves you!’, considering that is probably also technically untrue and could promote ‘false hope’?”
Not to be outdone, in June, “Three church groups [were] suspended from preaching at a secondary school after a leaflet containing homophobic scripture was delivered to homes in Walthamstow.”
In other words, because the leaflets contained a Bible verse that spoke against homosexual practice (part of a list of ten sinful behaviors in the verse; see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), they were suspended from using a public school for their meetings. (It should also be noted that the verse was one of several on the leaflet, and homosexual practice was absolutely not the focus of the leaflet.)
Remarkably, all three church groups denied distributing the leaflets, with one theory being that it was the work of a “rogue parishioner.” The spokesman for one of the church groups stated that, “It is ill advised to put that sort of thing on a leaflet and we would certainly never do it,” while a local atheist who received the leaflet said, “People who preach this sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a school.” Perhaps verses like this should just be cut out of the Bible to avoid all offense?
And then there was the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, a Christian couple in their 60’s who had cared for 15 foster children in the past. Last year, England’s High Court ruled that they could no longer take in children after a gay activist organization brought a complaint against them, concerned that kids in their care could be “infected” with Christianity.
As Eunice Johns explained, “All we wanted to do was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents, but because we are Christians with mainstream views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable as foster parents.”
In May, the courts again ruled that the Johns’ could not provide care for a 16th child. As Eunice stated, “The judges have suggested that our views might harm children.” (She had previously told a social worker who pressed her about her faith that she would provide love and care for a child who identified as homosexual but would not tell the child that homosexuality was “okay.”) She continued, “We have been told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that our moral views may ‘infect’ a child. We do not believe that this is so.”
Ironically, the initial court ruling against the Johns’ came down just weeks after magazine covers around the world breathlessly announced the news that Elton John and his partner David Furnish now had a baby boy, all of which leads me to ask: Christian England, home of men like John Bunyan, John Wesley, William Wilberforce, G. K. Chesterton, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis, home of cities named Christ Church and of once-Christian universities like Oxford and Cambridge, what has become of you?
When I was a young dork growing up in West Texas in the 70s and 80s, my folks raised me to believe that making good money via righteous and industrious means was actually a good thing—y’know, something to aspire to. Remember that notion?
My folks would point out people in the neighborhood and community who busted their butts and got rewarded for the goods and/or services they provided and would say, “See Johnny, Dougie? Johnny studied. Johnny worked hard and smart, and now Johnny’s rich, and you’re still a weed-smoking dipthong working at a frickin’ gas station high as a kite on Colombian gold.”
Yep, Johnny had a good life. And me, eh … not so much. The reason why? Well, it wasn’t because wealthy fat cats suppressed me. It wasn’t because I wasn’t afforded knowledge (because I was); I just chose to esteem it lightly. In addition, it wasn’t because I didn’t have enough after school government pimped-out programs at my disposal to help my wayward self.
No, my lack was based not on a deficiency of opportunity but primarily because I watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High, thought Spicoli was cool, and ran with that. Yes, I blame Sean Penn. Damn you, Sean Penn.
As Providence would have it, at the ripe old age of 21, I extracted my head from my backside via Christ’s effectual grace, and all the advice my folks gave me regarding knowledge and hard work came rushing back to my bong resin clogged cranium. Call me a late bloomer.
Since I had an affectation for organic stuff, I got into landscaping—planting grass, trees, shrubs, and installing sprinkler systems and custom curbing. I bought a used CJ-7, a crappy trailer, a sod roller, some machetes, rakes, hoes and shovels, and within one year I was doing a solid six figures in sales. No government handouts. No pity money from Christians. No, “woe is me, I used to be a drug addict.” No, “I’m lost and need to get on the government tit.” Nope, I accomplished the aforementioned at a young age via hard work. Just hard work. Nothing but good ol’ hard work.
Yes, children, when I was a wee lad, my parents taught me that taking money from the government when one didn’t truly need it was scummy. Matter of fact, we viewed those who did milk the system as shameful thieves—a veritable affront to what it means to be a man.
Check out my latest video, “10 Ways Husbands Can Wreck Their Marriage,” here.
Many were shocked to learn that IRS agents actually targeted conservative advocacy groups for heightened scrutiny when making decisions concerning their tax exempt status. I don't know why so many people were shocked. This is what university administrators have been doing for nearly twenty years. I've been writing about it for over ten years because I know that what you see on the campus today is what you will see in the broader culture tomorrow.
It all began in my home state back in 1995. That was when a gay activist and UNC administrator named Jonathan Curtis targeted the Muslim Student Association (MSA) for de-recognition. He didn't like the MSA position on homosexuality so he decided to yank their status as an official student group.
The IRS has now been caught doing a very similar thing. Their organization collects taxes. They have an interest in big government. So they are naturally hostile toward groups seeking a reduction in the size of government. The source of their motivation is obvious. But where do they get the hubris to act upon the desire to abuse their power?
