Kevin McCullough - Our Father Who Art Obama

A disturbing bit of news came out of the President's decision to sign our newest defense bill into law. The sizable bill ($633 Billion) covers the majority of the appropriations needed to run our nation's defenses for the next year.

I don't have an issue with it, the size of it, or the purpose of it.

In fact, I especially like provision 533 of the law. Because it put a check on the executive branch from being able to bully any further our military men and women, specifically those in uniform but who answer to a power much higher than one Barack Obama.

The provision specifically allows chaplains of all faiths to opt-out of being required to serve as an officiant or a celebrant at any "religious ceremony" that would conflict with their own deeply held religious faith.

To be clear, this provision has nothing to do with people who engage sexually--in any fashion. It has nothing to do with people who have ideas about how conservative or liberal the social mores of the day are (or should be.)

Instead it's sole language is aimed at giving 1st Amendment guarantees to military chaplains on issues that their faiths may find objectionable.

Because the President can't not sign a military spending bill--in order to keep our nation's defenses operating--he had to sign the measure, but in doing so he broke a "fundamental principle" that he held for many years--the inclusion of a signing statement.

In 2008 the President said this from the campaign trail:

"I disagree with that [issuing signing statements]. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States - we're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." - Barack Obama (May 2008)

Yet this seemed of little importance when he added this signing statement to the signature of the defense bill:

"Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."

As a lover of words, I always enjoy dissecting the meaning of something when someone states it, especially if they do it in a way that they said they never would.

Obama says, "unnecessary and ill-advised provision... because the military already protects the freedom of conscience."

Well Mr. President--I don't mean to speak out of turn--but if that were true, then why did people find it necessary to include this provision in this bill?

Obama, "The Secretary of Defense will ensure... regulations do not permit... discriminatory actions..."

Again, Mr. President, this seems to be saying that your designee will be the arbiter of what is moral. Not the conscience of the chaplain. This provision is designed to keep you from being able to order the chaplain to do something that violates his conscience. (You're pretty much missing the point here sir.)

Obama, "My administration remains committed to continuing the... implementation... of the repeal... of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

But wait, Mr. President, you took some law courses right? Once you've repealed a bill, there is no "continuing the successful implementation of." A law is repealed or it isn't. Someone isn't "almost" pregnant.

Obama, "Section 533 will not alter that."

Except Mr. President it completely will, as long as the section is allowed to stand under the law as passed. A law you signed. A law that even you yourself now sit under the authority of. And nothing you say about section thus and so will make it any other way.

Now I fully expect the President and his gaggle (Holder and the like) to go on a hot streak of investigation to purge all the discriminatory chaplains that exist in the military. Court cases must be filed, and these rampant abusers of power, the highly exalted military chaplain corps must be humbled. Because you know if there is one place to find discrimination it's in the military, and above all else you know how rotten to the bone military chaplains are in their uncaring desire to administer faith and comfort to wounded service personnel.

Today I am thankful for the men of conscience that make up our chaplain ranks. I pray for their future. And I hope that someday our President will learn to respect others' differences rather than insisting that his view of what is moral always be the law of the land.

President Obama is not God, though in his signing statement to this measure he sure seems to wish to sound like him.

Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Faith War USA

Atheists and leftists be warned, the Christians of America are here to stay!

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - The Power of Christmas

The power of Christmas love and compassion is a fearful thing to the enemies of faith and freedom.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - God Will Not Be Mocked

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

America has forsaken her first love. She has finally, and fully, given herself over to a licentious Lothario with whom she has increasingly flirted since her youth. He is sin – and, notwithstanding full knowledge of who he is and what he intends, with him she has lain.

America has tasted the poisonous fruits of lust, pride, passion, and envy – sloth, frivolity, iniquity and entitlement. She has tasted of their sweet deception and found it irresistible. She has danced in the streets, intoxicated by the very poison that will be her undoing.

America has rebelled against God. She has shaken her fist at Him and arrogantly cried, “We don’t need you. We don’t want you. We know better than you. Now go away.”

And so He’s going away.

Hosea talks of judgment against the nation that “plays the harlot” before God: “Though they bring up their children, yet I will bereave them to the last man. Yes, woe to them when I depart from them!” (Hosea 9:12)

I grieve for my children. I grieve for America’s children. Evil won on Tuesday. An arrogant and rebellious nation has chosen, for her leader, an arrogant and rebellious man, whose arrogant and rebellious party has, as Pastor John MacArthur put it, “adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their platform.”

“This is a new day in our country,” he lamented. “Parties that used to differ on economics, now differ dramatically on issues that invade the realm of God’s law and morality.”

We have mocked God.

God will not be mocked.

“Millions of Americans looked evil in the eye and adopted it,” wrote Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver the day after the election. “Abortion, same-sex marriage and immorality carried the day.”

Indeed, evil carried the day. America has willfully chosen a Democratic platform – a Romans 1 platform – upon which to stand. We have chosen a party that thrice denied God, and then returned his name in vain – amid deafening boos – to its platform.

God will not be mocked.

America has chosen a party that demands every taxpayer be complicit in the federally funded slaughter of the pre-born. We have exalted a party that seeks to – and in many was ways has already done so – enshrine into law the celebration of sexual deviancy and mock marriage.

The haughty peoples of four states have said to God, “Marriage is as we say it is, not as you have ordered it.” And so, though removed from truth, as east is from west, they have, at the ballot box, affirmed moral disorder.

Indeed, they have invited God’s wrath. Our president has invited God’s wrath. We all, through act or omission, have invited God’s wrath.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)

Yet excuses we give.

We excuse sin. We call that which God calls an abomination, “equality.”

We call that which God calls murder, “reproductive choice.”

We call that which God calls theft, “fundamental fairness.”

We “call evil good and good evil.”

America is divided and her president the divider. The scales have tipped. The 51 percent – the takers, the God-deniers and the subversive, now outnumber the makers, the seekers of righteousness and the patriotic.

Yet, soon after the election results were announced – after several hours of deep mourning for our nation, I found myself smiling. I found myself singing praises to the Creator of the universe: Christ, the way, the truth and the life. Jesus, Y’shua, the very image of God.

Indeed, I found myself experiencing joy.

Through it all, you see, He remains sovereign. His will is being done, even when it is not our own. He is faithful, though we are not. Victory is His. We are His. And so victory is ours.

Those of us who believe needn’t win every battle – any battle – to which we are consigned. We need only remain obedient. We need only remain faithful to his Word and to his commands. We need only remember that “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

Truly, though God has given over a rebellious nation to the party of Romans 1, we remain the people of Romans 8: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1)

Still, there will be condemnation for America. Things will get far worse before they get better – if they ever get better. As individuals, we will each stand before God and give an accounting – we will all face judgment. As a nation, we can only be judged in the temporal – in the here and now.

Have we reached the point of no return? Perhaps – perhaps not.

God is faithful. He has promised: “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Christ is faithful. He has promised: “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25)

The rain is descending. The floods have come and the winds beat down on our great nation. I am thankful that our forefathers, wise men indeed, built America’s house upon Christ, the Rock.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Damn the Torpedoes

Obama gets another four years and Americans must now stand stronger than ever before to protect our traditional faith and values.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The “Diversity” Police Strike Again

In the upside down, gay activist lexicon, tolerance means intolerance, inclusivity means exclusivity, and diversity means my way or the highway. Dr. Angela McCaskill, associate provost of diversity and inclusion at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, is the latest victim of the diversity police.

McCaskill is now on administrative leave after working at Gallaudet for 23 years. She assumed her current position as the university’s first Chief Diversity Officer in January, 2011, and she seemed ideally suited for her job, being female, African American, and deaf. In fact, she was “the first deaf African American woman to earn a PhD” from Gallaudet, hailed as “the nation’s premiere school for the deaf.” At present, however, she is so shaken by the university’s actions that her husband reports that she is under doctor’s care.

What was this accomplished woman’s great transgression? As a private citizen and resident of Maryland, she signed a petition in July supporting marriage as the union of a man and woman. And she signed this petition on the way out of a church service where her pastor had preached against redefining marriage. Almost three months later, a faculty member became aware of this and issued a complaint to the university, and McCaskill was immediately relieved of her responsibilities.

PlanetDeafQueer reported that, “On November 6th, Maryland voters will decide whether the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which was enacted by the Maryland legislature and grants lesbian and gay couples the equal right to marry, is upheld or rejected. While there are many that support overturning this important civil rights legislation, one person you would never expect to be in favor of doing so is Gallaudet University’s own Chief Diversity Officer and Maryland resident, Dr. Angela McCaskill,” noting that her “job at Gallaudet is to promote diversity and inclusion at Gallaudet.”

But there is not a single mention of gay or lesbian issues on the university’s web page entitled, “About the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.” Instead, the Mission Statement declares, “The mission of the Office for Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet University is to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed. The Office for Diversity and Inclusion will achieve its mission by collaborating with units on campus to intentionally design a comprehensive, university-wide approach to diversity; facilitate equity, access, social justice and inclusion; and, empower students, faculty, and staff to build a diverse and inclusive campus community. Through the cultivation of diversity, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion will lead efforts to institutionalize diversity as a fundamental transformative force that fosters professional growth and academic excellence.”

Can someone fulfill this role without believing that marriage should be radically redefined? Is it possible for the Chief Diversity Officer “to promote an academically enriching and supportive climate that allows all the diverse members of its community to thrive and succeed” without believing that a man should be able to marry a man and a woman marry a woman?

The answer is obviously yes, since even PlanetDeafQueer noted that, “Dr. McCaskill is well liked by students. ‘She’s been a great ally to the LGBT community and supported many of the LGBTQA Resource Center’s programs,’ said one student, who asked to remain anonymous. ‘I’m heart broken about this.’” So, you can be a friend of the LGBT community without believing that marriage should be redefined.

But there’s a more fundamental question to ask: Whatever happened to “diversity and inclusion”? Whatever happened to Dr. McCaskill’s Constitutional rights and freedoms?

Before “diversity and inclusion” became gay activist code words, they actually used to mean what they meant. (What a novel idea!) “Diversity and inclusion” referred to the welcoming of diverse viewpoints and ideologies and peoples. Now, however, in classic Doublespeak, they mean the opposite of their original definition (and in the name of “tolerance” at that).

But this is nothing new. To give a personal example, in June, 2009, Grand State Valley University (GSVU) in Michigan, a publicly funded institution, hosted an event to counter Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out conference, which was being hosted by a local church. (The Love Won Out conference was devoted to helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions.)

GSVU invited a militant opponent of Love Won Out to give a presentation mocking the idea that sexual orientation could be changed, to be followed by a panel discussion with five participants. When this was announced, the university received more than 10,000 emails requesting that I be included in the panel discussion, since all the participants were proponents of gay activism.

Despite this email deluge calling for just one of the five participants to have a differing viewpoint, and bearing in mind that the panel discussion was already quite secondary to the main presentation which would ridicule conservative Christian viewpoints, the university refused to include me. To be specific, it was the department of inclusion and diversity that refused to include me!

But all hope is not lost. Back in DC, the Washington Times has now reported that, “Leaders on both sides of the Maryland fight over same-sex marriage are urging Gallaudet University to reinstate an employee who was suspended because she signed a petition in favor of traditional marriage.”

Now that would be a refreshing step in the right direction, not to mention in the direction of diversity and inclusion.

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Did The President Just Score With The Baptist Church?

It allows for “immunity from deportation,” and for “work permits.”

It is not described as amnesty, but rather, as a “deferred action process” that allows for greater “discretion” with spending resources.

Say what you will about President Obama’s new policy on not deporting illegal immigrants – it’s politically motivated, it’s vaguely worded, and so forth. The fact is that this policy shift potentially scores points for the President on both the left and right sides of the political aisle, and most certainly has changed the dynamics of the presidential election.

Let’s start by examining some political realities. And let’s begin with this: the President’s re-election campaign has obviously been faltering over the last several weeks.

Earlier this year feminist groups lamented that the President had not done enough to support “women’s health concerns.” President Obama responded with an executive order that health insurance companies provide abortion and birth control coverage-which enraged conservative religious hierarchy and drew a lawsuit from the Catholic Church against the federal government. And the President’s polling lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney dropped slightly.

Then LGBT activists threatened to withhold campaign donations from the President because he had not done enough to champion the re-defining of marriage. In response, the President declared that his position on marriage had “evolved” and that he now supports “gay marriage.” And the President’s polling numbers dropped a bit further.

Shortly after, Team Obama began a series of attacks on Mitt Romney and the Bain Capital Private Equity firm (a venture capital firm for which Romney once worked). Romney, the Obama campaign suggested, had ruthlessly carried-out Bain’s objectives of firing as many middleclass, blue collar workers as possible as it took over private businesses, all for the sake of greedily squeezing more profits out of these companies.

These allegations from the Obama campaign were so egregious that even CNN Anchors began questioning their validity, and prominent Democrats began distancing themselves. Obama surrogate representative (and the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey) Corey Booker noted on national TV that Bain Capital has done a good job growing American businesses, and described the bashing of venture capital as “nauseating.” Democrat strategist James Carville expressed that he was “worried” about the President’s message on economic issues.

And once again, the President’s polling numbers continued to slide.

So now, having announced policy positions that appease certain left-leaning constituencies but that do not resonate with mainstream America, and with economic headwinds working against him, the President is in a colossal struggle for political survival. And the ethnically diverse youth culture that helped him get elected in 2008 is feeling the brunt of his economic policies, and has been left un-motivated.

It’s easy to see that “immunity from deportation” is, at least in part, what this left-leaning youth culture has been wanting from President Obama. But here’s what is not so obvious: it may very well be that the President has given socially conservative religious groups part of what they’ve been wanting, as well.

Although the dominant media ignores this, the fact is that key religious groups in the United States – many of which lean Republican in their political views – have nonetheless been calling for a “gentler tone” from Republicans on illegal immigration. Chief among these groups is the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest religious denomination.

Do a quick internet search with the name Dr. Richard Land (a leader among the Southern Baptist hierarchy), and you’ll see a pattern. Land has been calling for more permissive policies on illegal immigration for well over five years.

In fact, less than a week ago Land publicly joined forces with noted Evangelical and liberal Democrat Reverend Jim Wallis to announce what they’re calling the “Evangelical Immigration Table,” an agenda that seek s to A) Respect the dignity of every human individual; B) Protect the unity of the “immediate family;” and C) Respects the rule of law. Arguably, President Obama’s directive may be viewed as undermining the rule of law, as immigration law currently exists. Yet it is difficult to imagine that the President’s announcement is not embraced as very good news among the “immigration table” enthusiasts.

And it’s not just Baptists who may be quite pleased here. Mitt Romney’s own faith community, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), has become increasingly vocal and active with what can best be described as a relatively “moderate” stance on illegal immigration policy.

In fact, State Senator Russell Pearce, a Mormon and one of the author’s of the now-famous (and controversial) Arizona illegal immigration law “SB 1070” (the law that is now before the United States Supreme Court) increasingly found himself at odds with his own church in the aftermath of the law’s passage. The disconnect between the Senator and his church became so tremendous that Pearce was removed from office in his heavily Mormon district in Mesa, AZ, during a recall election last November, and replaced with the more moderate (and Mormon) Senator Jerry Lewis.

As media pundits ponder President Obama’s overture to the left (some call it outreach, others call it “pandering”), most are ignoring the cry for immigration moderation among social conservatives. And the President may have just gained some political ground that Republicans seemingly have been ignoring.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Lurita Doan - Obama Has No Faith

Acts of faith are performed each day in this country, and we are all the better for it. But sadly, Barack Obama does not seem to have faith in the American system, nor does he believe in American exceptionalism, nor does he believe that Americans can make it on their own without government handouts.

In short, Obama doesn’t have faith in us.

Faith has become an inflammatory topic in the 2012 election. In policy, speeches and campaign ads, the president has used faith as a means to demagogue his Republican opponent. Faith has been used by the left-wing extremists as a diversionary tactic, to attack Catholics and divert attention from a floundering economy. Faith has been used by Democrats as a political tactic to try to turn women against the Republican party. But, faith plays an even bigger role in the 2012 election than Democrats may realize because every day, the president shows a lack of faith that reveals his disdain for America.

For example, Barack Obama does not seem to understand that every small business that opens its door is the result of a profound act of faith. An entrepreneur believes in himself and his idea enough to take the risks, sometime to use his life’s savings, to create a better life.

Each time a business hires a new employee, it is an act of faith shown by both parties—the business believes that it can support the increased staff costs and will grow enough to make the expense worthwhile. The employee shows faith that the business will keep its doors open and offer opportunities for upward mobility.

But each small business also shows its faith when it counts on its government to create a climate with policies that support and encourage that growth.

Obama has shown that he doesn’t have faith in small businesses or the judgment of entrepreneurs. Instead he believes that only the government can make wise investment decisions or hire the unemployed.

Obama has shown that he doesn’t have faith that investors will do the wise things on their own. And so, he urges his Administration to invent even more restrictive mindboggling regulations al l designed to further the government’s ability to manage, direct, and ultimately control private enterprise.

Obama has shown that he doesn’t have faith in his fellow American to provide charitably, despite decades of evidence that Americans are the most generous people, the most philanthropically-inclined people, on the history of the world.

We are a nation of faith. America was first discovered, in a profound act of faith, by an explorer, Columbus, who sailed west at a time when most people believed the world was flat. Columbus’ belief, that the world was not flat, was an act of faith that made our great nation possible.

The colonists who came to America had faith that the new world would be different than the old world. They had faith that with hard work and perseverance, they could build a better life for themselves and their family.

Our founding fathers showed their faith in the principles that founded this great nation—to the point where they were willing to lay down their lives to break from England in a belief that the American system of government that they were creating was worth the sacrifice and would stand the test of time. But, Obama doesn’t seem to have any faith in the founding fathers’ belief in limited government.

Abraham Lincoln had faith in the union of the states and fought harder than any during the civil war to keep the nation together, insisting on pardons for Confederate soldiers and determined to move the nation past the great divide of the civil war.

Our nation showed its faith when we sent men to the moon, in an act of faith, so daring, so breathtaking in its scope that it is heartbreaking that our current, faithless presidential leadership has now cancelled the program.

Faith in the future, faith in our children, faith in a better life, faith that one man can make a difference—these are some of the immeasurable gifts that our country gives to the world each day. Our country, its origins, its innovation and its continued success inspire others to action and offers hope to the oppressed throughout the world. Our country is a beacon that attracts people from countless nations to our shores in the hopes of a better life.

Our great leaders and past presidents understood that America is a nation of faith and called upon that faith to bolster the nation during times of hardship.

On the eve of the D-Day Invasion, knowing that America was involved in a great struggle President Roosevelt prayed not for a quick victory, but for faith:”Oh Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled."

There is a wide and growing gulf between our current president and the American people, and that chasm is all about faith, for clearly, Obama has little faith in Americans as a people, capable of all things great and good.

Faith is frightening to Obama because with faith comes hope, and with hope comes independence and a belief in the future, a belief that difficult deeds can be done, and frontiers can be conquered. In sharp contrast, Barack Obama believes that Americans should place all of their hope and faith in the government rather than in themselves.

America is a faith-based nation, and whether the president likes it or not, our country is all the better for it.

Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - The Not-So-Massive Non-Believers Rally in DC

The event was expected to be the “largest gathering of the secular movement in world history,” a “massive rally” that could provide “a sort of ‘Woodstock for Atheists,’ a chance for atheists to show their power in numbers and change their image.” But when pre-rally hype gave way to reality this past Saturday (3/24/2012) on the Mall in DC, the results were hardly earth-shattering, let alone movement-making and message-sending (especially to politicians, part of the targeted audience of the so-called “Reason Rally”).

The crowd that turned out for this drizzly Saturday was estimated at between 8,000-20,000 (I have seen atheist reports, however, that put the number at 30,000), which is actually less than some American mega-churches draw every week in their Sunday services.

There were blatantly sexist speakers at the rally, like Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, but their presence was justified by atheist bloggers like Hemant Mehta, who explained that, yes, these men “have their faults, but they amplify our way of thinking more than just about anyone else.” Therefore, Mehta explained, it is still worth having them speak because “we need big-name celebrities to attend. . . . This isn’t just about spreading science and atheism. This is about drawing attention to our movement. This is about getting media attention.”

If that was the goal, the event certainly fell short of its mark, as the Reason Rally Facebook page complained about the lack of media coverage while the Drudge Report didn’t even mention the rally in its weekend news coverage, finding items like this more newsworthy: “Hippies head for Noah’s Ark: Queue here for rescue aboard alien spaceship. Thousands of New Agers descend on mountain [in France] they see as haven from December's apocalypse.” (It looks like the hippies are living out their legacy while the atheists are still waiting for their “Woodstock” moment.)

Prof. Richard Dawkins was one of the keynote speakers, calling on the faithless not only to reject religious beliefs but also to “ridicule and show contempt” for religious doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist (Holy Communion). (In keeping with this, he once referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a “submissive cosmic doormat.”) Yes, such are the enlightened sentiments of one of the self-styled “brights” – a self-defeating designation if ever there was one – and we can only imagine how beautiful the world would be if the Dawkins’ mentality ruled the day. (Sarcasm intended.)

And while it is true that “the brights” are still trying to figure out the origin of life, physicist Stephen Hawking has now explained how the universe began without God, stating in his book “The Grand Design,” “Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.” Yes, nothing (which is really something) created everything! How did we miss that for so long?

As pointed out by Oxford mathematician and scientist Dr. John Lennox (unfortunately, not one of “the brights”), “The main issue . . . is that gravity or a law of gravity is not ‘nothing’, if [Hawking] is using that word in its usual philosophically correct sense of ‘non-being’. . . . If, therefore, we say ‘X creates X’, we imply that we are presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is obviously self-contradictory and thus logically incoherent – even if we put X equal to the universe! To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its own existence sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not science.” (From his book “God and Stephen Hawking.”)

But I digress from the main topic at hand, namely the “Reason Rally.” Perhaps the most illustrative part of the day was the talk given by 16 year-old atheist Jennifer Alquist, who successfully fought to have a prayer banner removed from her Rhode Island High School. Hailed as a hero at the rally, she wanted everyone to know that if she could bring about change, anyone could.

And what, exactly, was so offensive about the prayer banner? It contained these words, written with the encouragement of school leadership almost 20 years ago:

Our Heavenly Father.

Grant us each day the desire to do our best.

To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.

To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.

To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.

Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.

Teach us the value of true friendship.

Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.

Amen.

If only those values were inculcated in our schools across America! What a dream that would be. But for the atheists, if those values are associated with God on a banner, then they and God must go.

Atheist David Silverman, one of the event organizers, stated before the gathering that, “We'll look back at the Reason Rally as one of the game-changing events when people started to look at atheism and look at atheists in a different light.”

I believe he was right. From here on, we’ll probably look at them with more pity.
Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mary Grabar - Teaching George Washington When Professors Aim to 'Stop Santorum'

In an age and time when I find most of my college students unfamiliar with the story of Adam and Eve or the origin of the phrase, “judge not lest ye be judged,” I enter discussions about religion with some caution. Almost universally my students do not believe that religious belief is necessary for morality, and seem to be offended by the very concept.

But when one discusses the speeches of our earlier presidents, as I do in my composition classes, it is necessary to address religion’s role.

So last week, as we discussed George Washington’s Farewell Address, I asked students to recall the major points he made. Because several of them had already studied the speech in high school, they listed points most emphasized by teachers: his cautions about foreign entanglements, factional discord, and debt. Not many recalled his injunction to use the Constitution as a safeguard against “internal enemies.” Only one recalled his reminder about the importance of religion.

Although it does not take up much of the speech, it is an important passage, and one worth recalling in today’s age when libertarian ideals seem to motivate most college students and when many conservative pundits caution us about focusing on social issues.

But Washington reminds us, as do the other Founding Fathers, of why the Constitution is necessary in the first place.

The Constitution is structured according to a vision of mankind as inherently flawed, as marked by Original Sin. This view of human nature is what sets apart those who established the longest-lasting Constitution from the utopian idealists who see human nature as essentially good. Those human beings who are flawed by selfishness or irrationality (as they see it) can be shaped by the right social and political forces—and woe to the man who resists the efforts by the utopian theorists to make him good! We have seen that in the death tolls of such schemes.

But in Washington’s view, because character alone cannot be trusted, a division of powers helps provide checks against branches of government and of individuals. Washington echoes James Madison.

Yet, even with such multiple safeguards and a contract that stands beyond the immediate interests of parties, Washington still reminds us of the importance of religion. He calls “religion and morality” the “indispensable supports” of the “dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.” In fact, he implies that patriotism is impossible without “these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” It’s a sentence I emphasize. I ask students if they agree. Of course not, they almost unanimously say. One does not need to be religious to be patriotic. One does not need to believe in God to be moral.

Washington continues: “The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”

Notice that Washington calls on the “mere politician” to respect religion and morality. Washington then claims, “A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.” (It’s no wonder that moderns who ascribe to the notion that religion is a private affair that should be divorced from political life would rather forget George Washington or wipe him from the history books.)

Furthermore, Washington maintains that morality emerges from religion, as he asks a rhetorical question: “Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” This leads to my question of why we ask those who testify in court to place their hands on the Bible. This inspires more looks of consternation among students who have been educated in the idea that any kind of insistence on religious faith is an expression of “intolerance.”

Washington finally ends that paragraph by stating point blank, “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

That is about as unequivocal a statement as one can get.

Earlier in the speech, Washington had cautioned about regional animosities. Reminding them of the common “religion, manners, habits, and political principles” they shared, Washington encouraged citizens to adopt the identity “American”.

This is where students are apt to point out the changes that have taken place in over 200 years. The United States is no longer as homogenous as it was back then, when the vast majority of Americans belonged to various denominations of Protestantism. Students echo the standard line about “diversity” that infuses our educational establishment. They parrot the notion that it is an expression of “intolerance” to state that our nation is based upon a common moral and religious foundation of Judeo-Christian principles.

Yet, in spite of their constant exposure to “diversity” and a “globalism,” students have almost no ability to place our form of government and society into a global context. I remind students of the historical fact that Christianity introduced the notion that all people are equal in the eyes of the Creator. I ask students about our most basic laws. Why are parents who abuse or kill their children prosecuted? After all, in Greek and Roman culture, the father had the prerogative of allowing his infant child to die of exposure. Why do we take care of our elderly, even beyond the point of their “usefulness” to us? After all, Eskimos and other primitive societies, simply abandoned the weak and elderly, sending them off on ice floes. Apparently, students today don’t hear about such practices, while they are constantly bombarded about the “social injustice” of our economic system.

So, why, I ask, do our laws follow this Judeo-Christian injunction against killing? Other primitive societies, and now professors of ethics, like Peter Singer at Princeton, do not see anything unethical about killing handicapped infants.

When looks of horror register on the faces of students when I tell them about Singer’s proposal to allow parents to kill handicapped children, I tell them that their recoil at the thought of killing babies indicates the fact that even if they are not practicing Christians or Jews they have imbibed the values of a Judeo-Christian culture that values life. Those like Singer, quite significantly, begin by rejecting the Bible, which provides the premise that life is sacred.

The professor who works in a non-tenured position, as I do, broaches such topics with trepidation, lest any student (often called the “customer”) complain to the administration.

But I was pleasantly surprised when several students told me how much they had enjoyed and appreciated the discussion about religion in Washington’s speech. One, who is a Hindu, stayed after class, to tell me this.

Yet, if and when they follow today’s political debates in the news, students are likely to hear attacks upon Republican candidates’ religiosity and lack of respect for the “separation of church and state.” This is especially true about Rick Santorum who has been most outspoken about the importance of religion in public life.

In the classroom students are likely to hear views like those of Georgetown University Professor Jacques Berlinerblau, who charges Republicans with “secular-baiting” in his blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education. He claims Newt Gingrich pioneered the genre and Mitt Romney took it a “milestone” in its “evolution.” It is Santorum, however, whom he charges with demonizing Secularism, by reminding audiences of the atheistic nature of the “’French Revolution, moving onto the facists, and the Nazis and the communists and the Baathists.’”

Instead of considering the historical veracity of Santorum’s statement, Berlinerblau attributes nefarious and crazy motives to Santorum: “It is easy, lucrative, and even pleasurable, to pulverize sinister Secularism. It rallies the base, secures contributions, and helps conservative voters focus on demonic (i.e., liberal, Democratic) forces possessing our political system.” Running with his theory, Berlinerblau assigns an all-or-nothing faith in “divine revelation,” as if Santorum imagines he has a direct line to God. Berlinerblau then posits that religionists like Santorum might hear different things from God and thus have no basis upon which to decide policies. Such “anti-secular rhetoric,” he maintains, is “at its core . . . a demagogic evasion” (italics retained).

After he has whipped himself up to making Santorum a dictatorial theocrat, Berlinerblau concludes ominously, “Santorum and others will keep baiting secularism, and evading difficult issues, until someone stops them.”

In class, it will be worth reminding students about how the French Revolutionists and the Soviet Communists did first kill all the priests and nuns. It will be worth reminding students of the freedom voters have in drawing upon religious principles when they exercise their right to vote—in spite of many professors’ desire to simply “stop” people of religious faith, like Rick Santorum.

Mary Grabar

---

Mary Grabar is a writer and college English teacher, whose parents escaped from Slovenia in 1959 and spent a year in a refugee camp in Austria. They immigrated to Rochester, New York, when she was two.

Her views have been formed by experiences as an immigrant during the racial violence in Rochester in the 1960s and then at her alma mater, Benjamin Franklin Junior-Senior High School.

She tried to be a liberal, but then quickly realized that it was an exclusive club. Her conversion to conservatism was cinched when she returned to school in the master's program in English in the 1990's.

In spite of the hostility of most of the faculty and the torture of having to wade through postmodern nonsense, she earned her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.

---

Mary Grabar is a frequent Columnist at Town Hall.com and writes articles for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Newspaper.

---

Visit Mary's Website and her other Website: The Literate Citizen

---

Anne from PA - Rick Perry Speech in Iowa

Rick Perry Speech At Iowa's Faith & Freedom Coalition Fall Banquet.

Anne from PA

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Billy Grahm - 'Life, Faith, and Finishing Well'

Sean Hannity interviews Franklin Graham on his father's new book.

October 21, 2011

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Robin of Berkeley - Faith Like Potatoes

As a new believer, I’m starting to pick up on the language and the concepts; and I’m even, to my surprise, beginning to quote Scripture. But what is the hardest for me is cultivating faith.

This comes, I imagine, from growing up with parents who were serious control freaks. It’s no wonder given their harsh upbringing. Both of my parents were raised by Jewish immigrant parents from Poland who trusted no one. I received that message loud and clear: only rely on myself and don’t make mistakes. In essence, be my own Higher Power.

Of course, perfection is impossible and has led me to become a bit of a control freak myself (okay. . . a big control freak!). However, trying to be perfect has been an exercise in futility. No one is without flaws; we aren’t meant to be.

I’ve been thinking a lot about control and surrender, and the struggle to let go and let God, as the expression goes. And I’ve been especially pondering this after seeing an exquisite movie, Faith Like Potatoes.

I found the film in, of all places, the remainder section at Staples. I assumed it would be sweet, though a bit saccharine. I was wrong; it’s actually one of the most stirring and beautiful movies I’ve ever seen.

Faith Like Potatoes is the the true story of a white farmer, Angus Buchan, who, against all odds, successfully grows potatoes, and other crops, in South Africa. He and his wife and their gaggle of kids flee Zambia after a number of racially motivated murders. They arrive in South Africa to find the same dangers there.

Frustrated, angry, and drinking to excess, Angus is at the end of his rope. Though a staunch atheist, he agrees to attend a church service, where he responds to God’s Word.

Not only does Angus’ newfound faith transform his outlook, but he becomes a fervent evangelist. He travels around Africa, Europe and the U.S. to bring people to God, but also to try to heal the racial divide. (Incidentally, there’s a fascinating documentary about the real family in the Special Features section, which shows footage of a huge, healing event Angus conducted for South African whites and blacks.)

To me, what is most evocative about the film is how Angus’ conversion made him place his trust unconditionally in God. Consequently, he takes all kinds of risks because he believes that God is guiding him. One such risk is growing potatoes during a severe drought, where farmers are even losing their hardier crops.

Angus grew the potatoes not just for food, but also to demonstrate the power of faith. When farmers mock him for trying something so foolhardy, Angus explains that potatoes, like God, requires belief; since potatoes are well hidden in the soil, one must trust that the elements are working their magic.

I would love to experience this unwavering faith, though it feels alien to my life story. I wonder: Is it possibly to cultivate the steadfast faith of a person like Angus Buchan? I suppose that even asking the question is a display of emerging faith. Because, deep down inside, in a place that I’m just finding access to, I realize that God has been leading me and carrying me all along.

I will say of the Lord, ”He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.” Psalm 91:2

Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:20

Robin of Berkeley

---

Robin is a recovering liberal, and a licensed psychotherapist who lives in Berkeley, California. The above information is intended for entertainment and educational purposes, rather than to offer any kind of definitive diagnoses.
Visit Robin’s blog.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Kevin McCullough - Why The Intolerant Are Not Virtuous

Over the last two weeks a series of seemingly unrelated events demonstrate one clear idea. Radical activists, small in number and not even representative of the homosexual community at large, are intolerant bigots, who seek to do harm not just to people with who they disagree, but to those that would be helped by the groups they disagree with.

Activists, and to some degree their mouthpieces in the media have conducted witch-hunts designed to hurt not just the ones who have different ideological viewpoints, but wish to disrupt the charity that people who disagree with them advocate for.

It is profoundly, viciously hurtful to the innocent people in need of help, and it is an attack on free speech, association, and the practice of religious freedoms.

In Los Angeles, California the founder of TOMS shoes was so harassed by the activists, they all but forced Blake Mycoskie, TOMS founder, into a near apology for appearing at an event in which Focus On The Family recorded an interview with the shoemaker. The purpose of which was to inspire listeners to help put needed shoes on the feet of African AIDS orphans. Secondarily Focus hoped it might also inspire listeners to begin their own companies ordered around the economy of compassion, and budgeting for those in need.

Activists launched online petitions to attempt to pressure customers from shopping with TOMS shoes because of some imagined "alignment" with a supposed "hate group." Though the only institution to ever classify Focus On The Family as a hate group is a group that could easily qualify for the designation themselves - The Southern Poverty Law Center - at least by the standards they use to define "hate."

The irony of the matter is that Jim Daly, Focus On The Family's president, has purposefully chosen to engage those who disagree with some of Focus' positions on public policy, and has even attempted to find common ground on things like reducing abortions, increasing adoption, and in the event of the TOMS shoe event -- give foot coverings to African AIDS orphans who might otherwise step on something that would cut their feet, develop infection, and damage their health, if not take their life.

Throughout the course of this week, acting on the work of radical extreme activists, ABC News' Brian Ross, brought investigative journalism to an all time new low. Pretending to do some sort of "investigation" into the counseling clinic that is operated by the spouse of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Ross ran consecutive hit pieces on the clinic and made enormous intellectual leaps of gymnastic strides to tie the negative outcome to Bachmann.

Through the use of hidden cameras, men who behave in homosexual fashion, videotaped sessions with Christian counselors at a clinic. On tape the counselors attempted to give them advice on how to re-channel their sexual behaviors. The undercover footage was edited and reported on in such a way to attempt to make it appear as though the counselors were brainwashing clients. The tiny little problem here however was that these men who engage in homosexual behavior, went to the clinic asking the clinic to help them find ways not to engage in the behavior any more.

The activists released selective b-roll of the videos, Brian Ross "investigated" the matter, and Diane Sawyer made assertions just short of saying that Michele Bachmann wanted homosexual men to kill themselves.

Shoddy journalism, pathetic advocacy, brought about by the worst "sting" operation ever conceived.

Lastly, mostly due to the TOMS shoes controversy, a number of other angry and radical activists, have attempted to blacklist other retailers like Delta Airlines, PetSmart, Microsoft, and Apple from participation in a give-back program to ministries like Focus On The Family (which bolsters healthy families), Promise Keepers (which like President Obama calls for men to exert a stronger presence in the life of their children), Angel Food Ministries (which feeds the hungry) and others.

The activists wished to injure the retailers because they presently participate in giving back to legitimate 501c3 organizations when constituents of those organizations shop online and purchase using a content application or shopping mall that the ministry may provide. The technology is provided by a group, formerly known as Christian Values Network, and is now known as the Charity Give Back Group.

By denying the give-back opportunities that the retailers offer, the activists are hurting the formation of healthy families, fighting for increased fatherlessness in the home, and literally hoping the poorest of the poor in America will go hungry.

Why? Because people who have a disagreement with their idealogical positions dare to express it?

The radical sexual activists in America today are the least tolerant people on the planet. Because while homosexuals are welcome in every church in America to come and sit, sing, pray, and learn. Most Christians--evangelical and catholic--are being told, "You're not even allowed to do good... Even for those in need."

These activists are the most intolerant people in America, and the outcomes they desire lack the virtue to improve the world.

It would be helpful if retailers of all stripes, let these debates happen in the idealogical spaces of our society, and not take the fight to the market square where these tiny numbers of radicals are attempting to squelch the commerce and relationships of every Catholic and Evangelical Christian in America.

For the retailers, that's a lopsided and losing proposition.

But by at least remaining neutral at they would not be perpetrating the ill will that the radical activists seek to inflict.

And grateful families, fathers, and formerly hungry kids, I'm sure, would express their thanks!

Kevin McCullough

---

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 215 stations & Sirius/XM . His new book from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't" March 2011.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---