Conservative Political Views

Bipartisan Snowe Job

2009-10-15T09:52:00.002-04:00

If you've listened to the media surrounding Senator Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) vote in the Finance Committee on health care reform, you could easily come to the wrong conclusion that this is a new sign of bipartisanship in the debate. Unfortunately, that's only because the media has chosen to ignore the valiant efforts of dozens of pro-life Democrats in the House who have worked with likeminded Republicans to try to ensure that the overhaul doesn't fund abortions. In the five committees discussing health care reform, a total of sixteen amendments were offered to separate abortion from health care. Many of these amendments were supported--and even sponsored--by Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), only to be opposed by the Democratic leadership. Yet the media has been largely silent on this strong showing of bipartisanship in opposing taxpayer-funded abortions.

Interestingly enough, these are the same reporters that highlighted the comments from former GOP lawmakers in favor of the Democrat's health care plan. But, as reporter Tim Carney from The Examiner points out (and the mainstream media chooses to ignore), those former legislators, including Tommy Thompson, Bob Dole, and Bill Frist, lobby for health care special interests and stand to personally profit from a government takeover of health care. There has been true bipartisanship from the very beginning of this debate as more leaders unite to exclude abortion from health care.

Needed: Vigilance not Volunteerism

2009-09-11T19:24:00.002-04:00

Today marks the 8th anniversary of the Islamic terrorists' attacks on the United States . Thankfully, America has not suffered an organized attack on our soil since that fateful day. There is a reason, or should I say reasons. 9/11 was a wake up call for Americans, first to be vigilant. After President Reagan won the Cold War, we failed to stand guard against the advancing ideologies that were hostile to the ideals of self government, individual freedom and ordered liberty. 9/11 reminded us we have to defend our ideals and protect our people. Secondly, it was also a wake up call to Christians to be more vigilant in praying for our nation and its leaders. There is an effort, however, to replace this vigilance with volunteerism.

In April, President Obama signed a bill changing the focus from prayer to service. He declared September 11^th the National Day of Service and Remembrance. According to Matthew Vadum, writing in the American Spectator, the recently dethroned green czar, Van Jones, and others within the White House were using this National Day of Service to push the green agenda in hopes of taking back 9/11 from the "Right" who have used it as "a day of fear that helps Republicans, into a day of activism that helps the Left."

Americans should not and cannot tolerate our security being used as a political football. Transforming a day on which we reflect upon the tragic loss of human life, the heroic sacrifices made to protect and defend that life and earnestly pray for our nation's divine protection into a day on which we focus on service and volunteerism as part of a left wing agenda is not a subtle shift of priorities--it is a significant, and even dangerous, change.

Myths and Facts about Obamacare

2009-08-24T21:51:00.002-04:00

Last week NBC News released a poll showing that while 36% of Americans believed President Barack Obama’s health care plan was a “good idea,” 42% of Americans believed it was a “bad idea.” NBC’s explanation for this inconvenient truth? “[M]isperceptions about the president’s plans for reform … that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue.” Specifically NBC found that 55% of Americans believed Obamacare “will give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants,” 54% believed it “will lead to a government takeover of the health care system,” 50% believed it “will use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions,” and 45% believed it “will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly.”
The President has since copied NBC’s diagnosis, devoting his Saturday Weekly Address to debunking these “phony claims.” The problem for NBC News, and the White House, is that every one of these concerns has rock solid foundation in fact.
Obamacare Will Provide Health Benefits to Illegal Immigrants: The President is correct when he says that the idea to provide illegal immigrants with health insurance “has never been on the table.” The problem is that the American people also know that despite the fact that our immigration laws did not intend it, there are 12 million persons illegally in the United States. The issue is enforcement and the provisions in H.R. 3200 are completely inadequate to ensure that illegal immigrants do not illegally obtain health care through the bill. In the House Ways and Means mark up of H.R. 3200, Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced an amendment that would use two citizenship status verification systems, the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) programs, to establish an individual’s eligibility to obtain the bill’s proposed affordability credits or enroll in the public insurance option. Both programs are currently used to determine citizenship status and eligibility for other public assistance programs. Safeguards to guarantee that only citizens can access federal health care benefits are necessary, considering that the US Census Bureau currently estimates that 9.6 million of the uninsured are not US citizens. The Heller amendment failed on a straight party-line vote.
Obamacare Will Lead to a Government Takeover of The Health Care System: Whether it’s a “public option”, individual mandate, employer mandate, the expansion and federalization of Medicaid, or the creation of a new health czar, the provisions in the health bills being pushed by the Obama administration call for more government regulation and intrusion in the American health care system. The nonpartisan, independent Lewin Group found that an estimated 56 percent of Americans would lose their current insurance under the House bill.
Obamacare Will Use Taxpayer Dollars to Pay For Women to Have Abortions: In all four mark-ups of health care legislation (three in the House and one in the Senate), Conservatives have offered amendments that would specifically prohibit federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Instead, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that actually requires at least one insurance plan to cover abortion in every geographical region and requires the newly-created public plan to cover all abortion services. How can the President and NBC News possibly claim that Obamacare will not direct taxpayer money to pay for abortions? They’ve employed a complete accounting fiction, claiming that beneficiary premiums will pay for abortions, not federal subsidies. Since neither the federal government nor any insurance company will be required to create separate “abortion” and “non-abortion” general funds (and since the President explicitly promise Planned Parenthood his health care plan would cover “reproductive services“), Americans have every right to believe that the existing legislation will funnel their tax dollars to abortion.
Obamacare Will Allow Government to Ration Health Care: Both the House and Senate bills call for an increased role for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) to determine which medical procedures are most effective at treating specific ailments. Although this provision is based on perfectly sound policy, many Americans are concerned that federal officials could use CER to make treatment, coverage, or payment decisions. Three Senators offered amendments that would have prohibited the use of CER to mandate coverage, deny care, or ration. CER, if used as a rationing tool, would obviously interfere with the traditional doctor-patient relationship. All three amendments failed on straight party-line votes.
These are just some of the very real fears Americans have about Obamacare. And as we have decisively demonstrated, all have sound basis in fact. But they do not even touch on another very real fear Americans have about Obamacare: the cost. This Friday, the Obama administration leaked news that they will be forced to raise their 10-year budget deficit forecast to about nine trillion dollars, up about two trillion from the previous forecast. Considering that all best estimates point to at least a $1 trillion price tag for Obamacare, it is a wonder just 42% of Americans believe Obamacare is a “bad idea.”

From the Heritage Foundation

President Obama's 'Wild Misrepresentations'

2009-08-12T14:10:00.000-04:00

President Obama hosted a townhall meeting yesterday afternoon that seemed more scripted than some of the soap operas that his broadcast was competing with. Not surprisingly, the meeting was carefully choreographed--so much so that the President couldn't find a single person to disagree with him. Apparently his was the only townhall in the entire country where there wasn't at least one voter opposed to a government takeover of health care. Unlike the millions of concerned citizens packed into local gymnasiums and city halls, this event was replete with a select group of White House cheerleaders. Even the little girl, who famously asked why the other side is so "mean," turned out to be the child of an Obama donor, who is important enough to have already met the First Family and Vice President Joe Biden at a previous fundraiser. Coincidence? As Michelle Malkin pointed out, there are no coincidences in this administration. What was more amazing than all this premeditation is how the President accused groups like FRC of engaging in "wild misrepresentations" while engaging in a series of incredible distortions himself.

The whoppers he told ranged from fudging the plan's list of supporters to the details of the plan itself. At one point he told the crowd, "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." That was news to the AARP, who disputed the endorsement immediately after the townhall concluded. Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, told reporters, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills... are inaccurate." The President also claimed, "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." But an independent study commissioned by the Heritage Foundation actually found that 88.1 million people would be shifted out of their current employer-based plan.

As part of his pitch, the President also tried to compare his health care overhaul to the competition between FedEx and the U.S. Post Office. He said, "If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." It's a false comparison for several reasons, but mainly because the U.S. Postal System is heavily regulated and, as a result, it's weighed down by federal mandates--just as the President's health plan would place burdensome new regulations on private insurance companies. That's why his statement is so revealing about why a government takeover of health care is not the solution. The American people are outraged because they don't want health care delivered with the empathy of the IRS, the efficiency of FEMA or the mismanagement of the Post Office. The Post Office lost $ 2.8 billion last year while giving a $ 135,000 "performance bonus" to its top executive. And because the USPS is federally run and funded monopoly, it is unaccountable for its perpetual fiscal mess--just like Medicare. That's not the kind of change the American people are hoping for.

Of course, the President's biggest misrepresentation was his insistence that he doesn't back a single-payer system. "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter," he told yesterday's audience. Maybe he hasn't said it as President, but last August, candidate Obama told an Albuquerque townhall, "If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system." The bottom line, Mr. President, is that if you portray yourself as an honest man, it helps if you keep your facts straight.

APA and Media Play Mind Games over Ex-Gay Therapy

2009-08-06T20:59:00.000-04:00

Promoting the belief that people are "born gay" and cannot change is crucial to the homosexual agenda of equating sexual orientation with race and the identification of homosexual conduct with the civil rights movement. Unfortunately for them, facts--like the existence of thousands of "ex-gays"--are stubborn things. Politically correct attacks on the ex-gay movement continued yesterday with the American Psychological Association's adoption of a resolution discouraging what they call "sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE)."

This led to a predictable round of headlines today saying things like "Gay Therapies Unsound" and "Psychologists Reject Gay Therapy." The APA's actual scientific findings were much more modest, however, declaring, "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work" [emphasis added]. Ironically, it is largely the pro-homosexual forces in the APA which have prevented "studies of adequate scientific rigor" to make more definitive conclusions. Claims that such therapy is actually harmful, meanwhile, are supported by only anecdotal rather than scientific evidence.

Yesterday's report could have been worse, since some homosexual activists want sexual reorientation therapy to be flatly declared unethical--something the APA declined to do. Instead, the APA should re-affirm the profession's traditional ethical commitment to letting every client, including those unhappy with their homosexuality, set their own goals for therapy. The Left's growing problem with professional ethics and valid medical standards continues to grow.

Judgment Day

2009-08-06T20:58:00.000-04:00

With just one day left on the summer schedule and public unrest threatening to sink the party's health care plan, Senate liberals hoped to leave town on a high note. For them, that meant confirming the President's highly controversial Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Despite a spotty record that shows her tendency to legislate from the bench, nine Republicans--including Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio)--helped to put her confirmation over the top in a 68-31vote.

While the overall outcome was disappointing, FRC applauds the nearly unprecedented unity displayed by the 31 Republicans who stood united against her confirmation on the grounds that she is a judicial activist. The conservative leadership in the Senate, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is to be commended for their noble effort to protect the Constitution.

On Hate Crimes, It's the Thought That Counts

2009-07-01T18:08:00.000-04:00

With the help of Saturday Night Live's finest--new Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.)--liberals are accelerating their push to pass federal "hate crimes" legislation. In a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) made no bones about his plan to fast-track the bill after the July 4th recess, bypassing the normal process. His maneuvering would mean that Republicans have relatively no input on legislation that would have sweeping consequences for churches, charities, Christians, and criminal law. Bob Knight sums it up as a "grab bag of ways to violate genuine constitutional rights while addressing a non-issue."

Nevertheless, the Left insists on forcing a bill through Congress that establishes "thought crimes," gives special protection to homosexuals under the law, and paves the way for the federal government to get deeply involved in crimes on the local level. The House already passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) back in April. Now the Senate leadership is racing to do the same.

You can help derail their train by flooding the offices of three Committee Democrats whose votes could make all the difference--Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, phone: 202-224-4843; Arkansas's Mark Pryor, phone: 202-224-2353; and Alaska's Mark Begich, phone: 202-224-3004. Remind them that equal justice under the law means equal protection for all!

It's OK if You Are Confused about Health Care Reform

2009-06-26T15:00:00.000-04:00

There are very good reasons to be confused about what kind of health care reform Congress is debating right now. The health reform plans keep changing. Even in the committees of jurisdiction, only part of each bill is being considered because the rest of the bill has not been drafted. And when it gets drafted, it has to be scored (its cost to the taxpayer determined) by the Congressional Budget Office. The scores have been so high, ranging from $1.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion in the U.S. Senate and $3 trillion in the U.S. House, that the crippling price tags are causing further changes. Until the Democrats decide whether or not to have a government health plan option, the delays and confusion will continue. On one hand, three of the most influential House Democratic caucuses have demanded a public/government plan option. On the other, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Association of Health Insurance Plans have all come out four-square against a government plan. When the leaders of the employer, doctor and insurance communities unite to oppose a specific legislative item, it becomes very difficult to pass. Moreover, President Obama has said that there is "no line in the sand" on a government plan, but House Speaker Pelosi says she cannot pass health reform in the House without a government plan. If you are confused about what is happening on health care reform, don't worry, so are members of Congress.

ObamaCare: Open Wide and Say, 'Nah!'

2009-06-25T16:24:00.000-04:00

Plenty of people tuned in to yesterday's White House infomercial on health care, but were Americans buying what the President was selling? ABC sure hopes so, since it turned over a full day of programming to the administration in an amazing co-opt of one of the country's biggest media outlets. In last night's primetime town hall, one of the audience members asked the President how he can justify a plan that limits the treatments for people with terminal disease.

"My mother... has terminal cancer," Robert Wasson said, " [and] she deserves to be treated to the best of [doctors'] abilities. To say it's expensive is not right. I just don't think you can put a price tag on quality time with loved ones, especially at the end of their lives."

The President tried to tackle the end-of-life issue with his plan, particularly the criticism that under the government option, people would be denied certain treatments or procedures. "...[W]e're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life [questions]... But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or drugs... that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."

If anyone's going to need painkillers, it's the taxpayers who would be forced to finance this treatment-lite plan. In an interview yesterday with Joe Scarborough, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) estimated that the House's radical version of "reform," a bill that includes a funding mandate for abortionists, could cost upwards of $3 trillion. Unfortunately, that number doesn't mean much to most Americans.

After the stimulus, omnibus, and bailouts, the country seems almost immune to the administration's black hole of spending. Let me put it in perspective. You would need to spend one dollar every second--going all the way back to 30,000 years before Christ--to reach a trillion dollars. Think about it. The federal government's first trillion dollar annual budget was just 19 years ago. Now we're talking about just one program that could cost three times that!

Insurance Includes No Assurance on Life

2009-06-08T17:55:00.000-04:00

President Obama, fresh from a government takeover of General Motors, now has his sights set on your medical coverage. On Saturday, he told Congress it was "time to deliver" on his massive health care overhaul. One version of the President's plan, crafted by Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was circulated throughout the Hill on Friday. In it, all Americans are guaranteed some form of basic health care, and employers are ordered to provide coverage--or else. Of course the biggest hiccup is that Kennedy's committee has no idea how Congress would pay for such a plan, particularly since the U.S. is already borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends.

The chief complaint against ObamaCare, apart from the trillions it would cost, is that this plan would force taxpayers to provide abortion coverage for the first time in U.S. history. There are some Senators that are concerned that the President wants to make "reproductive health care," including abortion, an essential part of his government-controlled system.

While the administration would force you to pay for abortions, it also leaves relatively no options for those faced with having to perform or promote them. The current plan lacks any clear conscience protections for medical workers, leaving the health care field exposed to even greater attacks. If the bill refuses to address the freedom of conscience, more of our doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will be forced to choose between their convictions and their careers.

Pelosi's Tortured Chamber

2009-05-21T10:59:00.000-04:00

In Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) House, policymaking has given way to excuse-making. The chamber's top Democrat continues to bumble her way through the questions about what she did and did not know about the C.I.A.'s waterboarding practice. Earlier this month, Pelosi insisted that she was never briefed about the interrogation of suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah, specifically that the C.I.A. "misled" her on their torture techniques.

Asked last week if she was accusing the C.I.A. of lying, Pelosi said, "Yes." The agency's new director, Leon Panetta, fired back with documents suggesting that the Speaker was "briefed truthfully" in 2002. Records also show that a Pelosi staffer was briefed again in 2003. "It is not our policy... to mislead Congress," said Panetta. "That is against our laws and our values."

In the days since Pelosi's disastrous press conference last Thursday, when she left the podium twice to try to get her facts straight, her selective memory loss seems to have abated long enough for the Speaker to concede that she did know more in 2003 than she let on. This matters for several reasons. First, as Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) points out, Speaker Pelosi is discrediting the brave men and women of the C.I.A. while Americans are fighting two wars. Secondly, she has called repeatedly for a "truth commission" to hash out whether the Bush administration was justified in torturing suspects. Obviously, this is problematic if she knew about the tactics years ago and did nothing to stop them.

Regardless of how it may damage her personally, Pelosi owes it to the C.I.A. and her country to set the record straight and apologize. As the second in line for the presidency, the American people need to know that they can trust her. If she refuses to share in the responsibility, then it's up to the House Ethics Committee to move quickly in launching its own "truth commission." Interestingly enough, Speaker Pelosi (despite her vow to "clean up Washington") continues to block the ethics investigations of her liberal colleagues. As this latest scandal suggests, Pelosi continues to be more preoccupied with political security than national security.

New Ice Cream Flavor

2009-05-20T14:49:00.000-04:00

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a newFlavor: "Barocky Road. "Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow. The cost is $100.00 per scoop. When purchased it will be presented to you in a Large beautiful cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you. You are left with an empty wallet and no change, holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

Are you stimulated?

First Comes Love, Then Comes... Motherhood?

2009-05-14T19:56:00.000-04:00

According to research released yesterday by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), America is rapidly becoming a nation of unwed parents. While the social shift has been underway for years, few could have predicted just how quickly it would sweep the country's households. In 2002, 1.4 million babies were born to unmarried women--doubling the number from 1980. Five years later, the data spiked to 1.7 million babies born to unwed moms in their 20s and 30s. To put things in perspective, four of every 10 babies are now born to single mothers.

In the blink of an eye, the United States has gone from a relatively gradual uptick in unwed births to being completely Europeanized. Experts cite plenty of reasons for the surge, but the de-emphasis of marriage and family is by far the largest. As more men retreat from responsibility, women are delaying marriage or foregoing it altogether. That's bad news for children and for anyone hoping for a return to limited government. As the foundation of our homes splinter, Washington will look for new ways to fill in the cracks. Most liberals, like those presently in control of government, believe that Washington can do a better job supporting families and raising children. Instead of policies that strengthen families, the White House will look for ways to bolster the government's role in them.

Of course, a lot of fiscal conservatives ignore marriage as a policy issue because they think of it as a cultural or religious institution. What they fail to realize is that it's also an economic institution that has enormous implications for the role of the federal government. Every year, state and federal governments fork over $280 billion in welfare, food stamps, and other anti-poverty programs just to keep these broken families afloat. That means that in one decade, the decline of marriage has taken $3 trillion dollars out of taxpayers' pockets.

As Dr. Pat Fagan writes, "This system is a massive injustice. Married people are the source of a massive transfer of payments to broken families. Those who stay together are also paying for those adults who do not." If the federal government could reduce family breakdown by a single percent, taxpayers would save around $3 billion dollars a year. And those are just the fiscal benefits. Having a happy, two-parent home to grow up? That's priceless.

Irresponsible Funding for Irresponsible Behavior

2009-05-12T12:23:00.000-04:00

In keeping with the administration's lack of restraint, Washington is preparing to send a message to America's teens that sexual restraint is also unnecessary. One of the few places that President Obama has shown a stingy side is by cutting programs for teens that have made a meaningful impact on public health. Of course, it's not really a spending cut since the money is being redirected to new pro-contraceptive programs for teens.

In fiscal year (FY) 2009 the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) fund was $94.7 million. Today the administration is proposing that of the $114.5 allotted for FY 2010, no less than $75 million would go to teen pregnancy prevention programs that include contraception promotion--not abstinence education. While another $25 million could be used for abstinence education, there is no guarantee that it will be since the proposal calls for "new strategies" with this money.

Abstinence funding in Title X Adolescent and Family Life funds is getting a similar cut. Instead of $13 million going to abstinence education, programs that advocate abstinence would have to compete for $3.28 million earmarked as "new strategies" for prevention, but as with CBAE there's no guarantee that the abstinence projects would be funded. The administration defends the abstinence cuts by pointing to studies, many of which are linked to Planned Parenthood, that question the effectiveness of abstinence programs.

The truth is, abstinence education goes beyond pregnancy prevention to promoting holistic change in teenagers. Studies show that in addition to preventing pregnancy and disease, teens who practice abstinence are better off emotionally and are much more likely to experience marital fidelity and satisfaction. The same cannot be said of the comprehensive sex education. In a review of 119 studies, comprehensive sex education has produced no compelling evidence of sustaining a meaningful effect on protective behaviors in a school-based setting, even after three decades of implementation and evaluation.

Obama’s First 100 Days

2009-04-30T12:49:00.000-04:00

From The Heritage Foundation:
This week marks Barack Obama’s historic first 100 days as President. Highlights of his Presidential actions are listed below.
Impact on Spending, Debt, and Taxes
• President Obama’s $3.69 trillion budget will raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and will permanently elevate federal spending to nearly 23 percent of the entire economy by 2019—a level reached only three times since the end of World War II.
• The President’s budget dumps a staggering $9.3 trillion in new debt—$68,000 per household—into the laps of America's children and grandchildren. This is more debt than has been accumulated by all previous Presidents in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush—combined.
• President Obama ordered his cabinet to identify and shave a collective $100 MILLION in administrative costs from their budgets after proposing 40,000 times that in his budget and spending bills.
• The President’s budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that energy companies would immediately pass on to all consumers, including those earning less than $250,000.
Impact on Foreign Policy
• The President approved a cut of 15 percent of the Pentagon’s budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe.
• Both President Obama and the Secretary of Homeland Security have been reticent to discuss the threat of terrorism, and Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies.
• The President declared that “50 years” of US policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship.
• President Obama’s Justice Department released documents on terrorist interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 9/11, yet refused to declassify and release additional material that describes the full scope and context of the program, including the effectiveness of the CIA interrogations.
Impact on Domestic Policy
• The President took over General Motors by firing the CEO.
• President Obama put the breaks on cheaper energy by delaying the opportunity to expand domestic supply through offshore drilling.
• The Obama Administration took the first official step towards federal regulation of carbon dioxide (the gas we exhale) by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare carbon dioxide dangerous to human health and the environment.
Click here to read more about President Obama's first 100 days in the White House.

Obama's Bad Science Bailout

2009-03-10T14:15:00.000-04:00

Yesterday's Executive Order may not have surprised conservatives, but it certainly shocked the Left. Although most of the country expected President Obama to make good on his promise to reverse the federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, the final order turned out to be far more extreme than ESC's biggest proponents had hoped. Most believed the President would maintain some semblance of restraint and allow experimentation only on those embryos discarded by fertility clinics. Unfortunately, no such limits exist. The President not only cracked ajar the door to ethically-challenged research, he flung it wide open--leaving the very scientists who demanded this money potentially in charge of its limitations.

Under the President's directive, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), unless Congress intervenes, will determine what, if any, boundaries there might be on how we obtain these embryos. With no clear policy from the White House, you and I could be footing the bill for research that clones embryos just to scavenge their parts.

If that's the case, our policy will condone the creation of life for the sole purpose of experimenting on it. Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College bioethicist, said, "There are lot of people on the left and the right sides of our political spectrum who are opposed to that--to create a life to destroy it."

President Obama justified the idea yesterday, saying, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to... work to ease human suffering." But killing to cure doesn't make murder more acceptable, just like giving stolen goods to the church doesn't justify larceny. As Yuval Levin, the former executive director of President Bush's Council on Bioethics writes in today's Washington Post, "In science policy, science informs--but politics governs, and rightly so."

By shielding this research from any public or congressional scrutiny, the President may as well tear up his social contract with the American people. When we're talking about human life and taxpayer dollars, voters have a right to know who's going to monitor the scientists. The appetite for this research may be insatiable, but as Levin says, "[Science]... is no substitute for wisdom, prudence, or democracy."

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) disagrees. A longtime proponent of unethical research, DeGette urged Congress to make Obama's executive order permanent. "Congress must quickly pass complementary legislation so that no future anti-science administration will be able to hinder progress... Congress absolutely must not delay in codifying the directive to prevent science from being subject to the whim of politics." Here is the first of what we expect to be many fierce attacks on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment--the only policy remaining that protects taxpayers from directly funding the destruction of human embryos.

President of 'Hope' Gives Patients Anything But

2009-03-09T13:31:00.000-04:00

For eight years, President George Bush proudly displayed in the Oval Office a bust of Sir Winston Churchill on loan from Great Britain. As a gesture of goodwill, the British government offered to let President Obama keep the statue during his term as a symbol of our longstanding friendship. Obama declined, shipping the bust back to England--and with it, the reminder of Churchill's great wisdom. It was he who warned that if evil prevails "all that we have known and cared for will sink into a new Dark Age, made more sinister...by the lights of perverted science."

Today, that "perverted science" took root in America in a powerful new way, as President Obama tore down the wall between the federal government and embryonic stem cell experiments. By executive order, he took the first step in overturning the restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. His decision will allow government agencies to use federal money to encourage experiments on innocent human life, abolishing a ban that Bush put in place in 2001.

Supporters of the decision are quick to point out that Americans won't be financing the death of embryos. Although we may not be funding the killing, we are funding the killers. For now, the one law that prevents Obama from using taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of embryos directly is still in place. The Dickey-Wicker amendment, approved by Congress every year since 1996, bans the use of federal funds to create human embryos. Unfortunately, even that safeguard could be in jeopardy under the liberal majority. As with the other pro-life riders, Dickey-Wicker must survive the appropriations process--a feat that could now be monumentally more difficult.

Obama's decision puts the government in a business which is not only unethical but also medically unnecessary. As recently as last week, researchers announced that they had successfully turned ethically created cells into the neurons that break down in Parkinson's disease. The week before, scientists produced evidence that they had treated Parkinson's in a patient with his own adult stem cells. Almost daily, researchers are celebrating new breakthroughs without compromising a single human life. Over 70 diseases and conditions have already been treated through adult stem cells, helping patients overcome everything from juvenile diabetes to heart disease. There is a common misconception that ESC research hasn't yielded these same results because it's not legal. It is. Only federal funding has been restricted. Private, commercial, and even state ESC experiments continue to no avail. That's why the ESC community is so desperate for federal funding. Many of the private ESC financiers see the method as an expensive failure. Even Dr. James Thomson, who first grew human ESC in 1998, has pulled his resources from embryos and invested in induced pluripotent (or iPS) cells, because, apart from the satisfying the moral dilemma, these cells are easier and cheaper to reproduce.

While the Obama administration and its supporters claim to be on the cutting-edge of science, the new President is pursing old technology. And thanks to the latest stimulus package, he will have at least $8 billion to do so. In a clever political move, Obama put the money in place at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the second "bailout," then moved ahead with rescinding Bush's restrictions. As he stated today, it will be up to NIH to decide in the next 120 days on the guidelines for ESC research.

Of course, scientists will lobby to obtain the money without strings or congressional oversight. According to the White House, their wish may be granted in the form of a presidential memo which Obama released today that seeks to insulate scientists from political accountability. In instances like this one, a lack of transparency is unacceptable, particularly when taxpayers are footing the bill. Harold Varmus, who co-chairs the President's Council on Science and Technology, defended the idea. "This is consistent with the President's determination to use sound scientific practice... instead of dogma in developing federal policy." Is it dogma or discipline? I guess that depends on your worldview. Are they restrictions or protections? Research or experiments? In this brave new world of commodifying human life, we should all be grateful for moral restraints. Please contact your leaders and urge them to uphold the ones that still exist. Urge them to right Obama's wrong by voting for the Patients' First Act. Instead of asking taxpayers to fund the destruction of life, this bipartisan bill would promote stem cell research that is making progress on principle.

The Standard is Poor

2009-02-25T20:44:00.001-05:00

His speech may have inspired the nation, but President Obama's economic cheerleading failed to make a believer out of Wall Street. Despite today's bleak news on the trading floor, the comforter-in-chief seemed to accomplish what he set out to do on Tuesday night--raise the spirits of grassroots Americans. Before last night's speech, confidence in the country had tumbled. While an overwhelming majority approved of President Obama (62%), nearly 80% agreed that "things are going badly in the United States." By a noticeable margin, the President has become more popular than his policies.

While people respond to his rhetoric, the market responds to reality--which is why investors have seen an interesting trend each time the President's outlines his agenda for the economy in a major speech. Obama's stock goes up, and the Dow goes down. Like a truth indicator to the President's plans, Wall Street tells us what Obama will not: financial experts have serious misgivings about the administration's approach to the crisis. The correlation below is really quite striking. When the President speaks, the market listens... and crumbles.

November 5, 2008 (Wednesday after Election Day): -486 (5.0%)

January 9, 2009 (one day after Obama speaks at George Mason University on "need" for $800 billion stimulus package): -143 (1.6%)

January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day): -332 (4.0%)

February 10, 2009 (one day after Obama declares that without a stimulus, "an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with a catastrophe"): -382 (4.6%)

February 17, 2009 (market opens for the first time after Congress passes $787 billion stimulus on February 13; Obama signs bill into law, declaring, "The stimulus lets Americans claim destiny."): -298 (3.8%)

February 19, 2009 (one day after Obama announces potential mortgage relief plan): -90 (1.2%)

February 25, 2009 (one day after Obama's first speech to the full Congress): -80 (1.1%)

Pig Pen: Obama Signs Pork Package into Law

2009-02-18T15:40:00.000-05:00

With one stroke of the pen, President Obama vaulted into the record books yesterday, signing what may stand as the largest spending bill ever passed in the history of America. The legislation itself is eight inches thick, so large, a White House aide joked, that it "needed to be strapped in with a seat belt on Air Force One."

Instead of relieving debt, President Obama's "stimulus" is expected to add $9,400 more debt to every family in America. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that may be a modest estimate. If the programs created by the stimulus are made permanent (as the late President Ronald Reagan said, "A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!") the 10-year cost of this bill will be $3.27 trillion--almost triple the initial amount. Let me put that into perspective. If we spent a dollar every second, it would take 31,688 years to spend one trillion!

Unfortunately for U.S. taxpayers, there seems to be no caboose on this money train. The ink had barely dried on the stimulus before President Obama called for another $50 billion to stabilize the housing crisis. The auto industry is also striking while the money press is hot, lining up for another $17 billion handout--on top of the roughly $20 billion carmakers already received from Washington. Wall Street's finest are not far behind, as plans for a TARP 2 (Troubled Assets Relief Program) are already underway.

Obama: Up to His Earmarks in Pork

2009-02-10T13:30:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, President Obama was back in campaign mode, hoping to engender the same affection for his massive stimulus bill that he did for his candidacy. This time, voters are noticeably more skeptical. In Indiana, Obama abandoned his trademark optimism and warned that without his trillion dollar spending spree, we would be turning a "crisis into a catastrophe." He defended his recovery plan--but not without telling a few whoppers about the intricacies of his plan.

To a roomful of Hoosiers, Obama said, "Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. There aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill." In truth, it depends on how the President defines the word "earmark." A majority of Obama's projects are wasteful, special interest spending programs. If the Coast Guard's $255 million "polar icebreaker" doesn't qualify as pork, what does? Maybe the $3 million tax benefit for people with golf carts or ATVs?

Obama bragged, "The plan that we've put forward will save or create three million to four million jobs over the next two years." As the Associated Press points out, those numbers are impossible to substantiate. "The president's own economists... stated, 'It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.'"

Despite voters' displeasure, the stimulus bill passed the Senate today, paving the way for some high-stakes bargaining between the chambers. Democrats have already indicated that most of the Senate cuts will be put back into the final legislation during the House and Senate conference. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the "compromise" expected to pass today will cost $18.7 billion more than the House bill. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said, "I do think that there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration, some important priorities of our party." A "starvation diet" is hardly how I would characterize Bush's two terms, in which federal spending ballooned by more than 20 percent!

Unfortunately, this is just a tidbit of what the administration has in store over the next few months. On the threshold of an unprecedented $1.3 trillion stimulus, the President is moving forward with "phase two" of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), created to rescue Wall Street. In TARP 2, the Treasury Department has floated the possibility of spending up to $150 billion in new bank bailouts, shortly before the springtime omnibus, which is rumored to cost another $500 billion.

Dems Hope Pork Bailout Saves Their Bacon

2009-01-30T15:35:00.000-05:00

This much is clear after last night's vote. House Democrats will live or die by the stimulus. President Obama's hopes for a spirit of bipartisanship sank the moment Republican leaders got their hands on the bill's fine print. The American people seem to be catching the new wave of skepticism about the liberals' plan. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only forty-two percent of the nation's likely voters now support the President's plan. Perhaps they, like the GOP, are paying more attention to the fallout for the nation's families. Human Events says the $1.1 trillion pork-and-payoff bill will cost every American household $10,000--with just 5% dedicated to infrastructure. As families carefully spend their dollars, the presses are running around the clock to print more money for government agencies who abuse what they already have.

We're also learning of some disturbing connections between House liberals and the beneficiaries of the stimulus. Newspapers revealed that the bill's architect, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), had a vested interest in the massive $2 billion earmark for national parks (triple what the Senate Appropriations Committee approved). His son, Craig Obey, happens to be the chief lobbyist for the National Park Service. House Democrats also want to reward the National Science Foundation with a lavish $1.4 billion check at the same time its employees are under investigation for viewing and emailing porn on the taxpayers' dime ("for significant portions of their workdays, and over period of months or even years," according to Politico). Most Americans would agree that this isn't the kind of stimulus Congress should be funding.

We also learned that your money will help ingratiate Obama to his new Hollywood friends by providing a $246 million tax break for film investors. We commend the Democrats who stood against the party pressure and voted with conservatives and the GOP to protect the taxpayers. They include: Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), and Jim Cooper (Tenn.).

GOP Loses Standoff, Wins Respect

2009-01-28T15:31:00.000-05:00

President Obama came to the Republican mountain, but he didn't manage to move it. In his much-anticipated meeting with the House minority, the new leader tried to soften opposition to the $1.1. trillion stimulus package. Obama did concede on one of the Republicans' largest complaints--the hundreds of millions of dollars in contraception. He stripped that provision, along with a beautification project for the National Mall, but neither compromise did much to ease Republicans' minds. Like us, they see the "recovery package" not as stimulus but as a major pork-and-payoff bill that quietly authorizes the most controversial pieces of Obama's social agenda.

Although the legislation passed this evening 244-188, the GOP did set in motion a new era of opposition, voting unanimously against a bill that would take government into the final frontiers of universal health care and federalized education. In the face of the most popular incoming President since JFK, Republicans stood together in statement of solidarity. We applaud them for showing real backbone against unprecedented government expansion.

As the veil begins to drop from the shady elements of the stimulus, more people are beginning to understand what's at stake. Today's New York Times reads, "Stimulus Offers Road to Retooling Social Policy" with "little notice and no public hearings." We thumbed through the 1,588 page H.R. 1 and found plenty of waste. Obama offers: $600 million to buy "green" cars for government workers; $400 million to help NASA conduct climate change research (which ranks dead last on Americans' priorities, according to a new Pew poll); $4.1 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities," for which ACORN (the Democrats' get-out-the-vote machinery) would be eligible; and even $227 million to oversee the pork spending in the stimulus (Page 11). Medicaid would expand for the poor, the uninsured, and the unemployed, opening the doors to universal health care. And the bill would more than double the Department of Education's current budget.

24 Hours -- A World of Difference

2009-01-22T12:17:00.000-05:00

Americans watched on television as President Bush's jumbo jet soared out of sight on Tuesday--and with him, a long record of protecting the unborn. Although the Obama administration is only about 48 hours old, the new President has already set to work undoing years of pro-life and pro-family policy.

Minutes after Obama took the oath of office, the transfer of power was made complete on the White House website. For the past eight years I've been a regular visitor of the website. I have over 2,500 pictures in my library of the various points of President Bush's terms in office. The page, once home to a host of family values, now welcomes an extreme collection of anti-life, anti-woman, and anti-family agendas. Under the caption "civil rights," Obama pledges to fight for nationwide civil unions, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, homosexual adoption, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, expanded "hate crimes," and over 1,100 costly same-sex benefits. He promises to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as well as block a federal amendment to preserve marriage. In exchange for the support of groups like Planned Parenthood, the abortion business is also due for a rich payoff from the 44th president, including his support of abortion-on-demand, more funding for "family planning" programs, embryonic stem cell experiments, and tax-funded abortion.

Washington D.C. may have changed overnight, but our values as Christians must be enduring. We must continue to advance faith, family, and freedom in the next four years. God's people need to begin to work NOW on the next congressional elections to get conservatives elected. America needs to bless God before God will bless America!

At the U.N., a Dangerous Leap of Faith

2008-11-14T13:33:00.001-05:00

President Bush traveled to the United Nations Wednesday to join Gordon Brown of the U.K. and Shimon Peres of Israel at a two-day conference presided over by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The conference is a continuation of last July's summit of world religions held in Spain and also organized by King Abdullah and the Muslim World League. Later today, the U.N. is expected to endorse a statement issued at the conclusion of the Spain conference on the importance of religion and humanity's common values. Among them is "respect for religions, their places of worship, and their symbols ... therefore preventing the derision of what people consider sacred." All religions deserve respect, but the devil is in the details. As Leonard Leo and Donald Argue, members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, point out, this language is "a cleverly coded way of granting religious leaders the right to criminalize speech and activities that they deem to insult religion." In other words, this may be giving U.N. approval to Islamic "blasphemy laws," which are used to stifle dissent. If King Abdullah and other supporters of the Madrid statement truly care about the value of religion, they must allow people to freely practice the faith of their choosing, as prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, rather than give cover to blasphemy laws.

Texan Holds 'Em

2008-11-14T13:26:00.000-05:00

After a year-long battle with congressional Democrats, President Bush had the last word on online wagering yesterday, after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department issued a joint rule that will finally put a stop to illegal Internet gambling. FRC had worked extensively on the issue with House conservatives, helping them fend off members like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) who were scheming to keep government agencies from implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Without these new regulations, the law, which passed easily (317-93) last year, would have been useless. Now that the final puzzle piece is in place, banks and other payment agencies will have until December 2009 to stop credit card and other electronic payments to illegal gambling websites. This is a huge win for the family movement, which had argued that the banking industry had the technology to enforce the bans on Internet betting but not the will. Thanks to President Bush, who recognized the importance of closing the deal on UIGEA before leaving office, financial institutions will be obligated to protect Americans from a predatory industry that spawns an addictive habit which devastates families.

More Cultural Cold Feet?

2008-11-11T13:21:00.000-05:00

Marriage proponents in California had hoped the passage of Proposition 8 would bring an end to the emotional roller coaster for state voters. Unfortunately, the relief of protecting marriage in America's biggest state has been somewhat clouded by threats of litigation and statewide demonstrations. This weekend, churches were hounded by protestors, angry at the role Christians played in beating back the cultural tide. At a rally outside of the Mormon temple, homosexuals even turned on their own, hurling racial insults at gay African Americans who were there to demonstrate with the "No on Prop 8" crowd.

Perhaps the most surprising revolt of all on marriage is the one brewing among some Republicans. Although marriage proved to be the most winning issue on Election Day, a handful of high-profile Republicans insist on distancing themselves from it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a longtime opponent of Proposition 8, sounded more like a blue-blooded liberal on CNN Sunday, saying he hopes the state Supreme Court would "undo" Prop 8. "I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to... look at other issues... and not to get stuck in ideology." On the contrary, November 4 made it painstakingly clear that the GOP's only hope for survival is moving back toward a solidly conservative ideology.

Smash & Grab

2008-11-11T11:14:00.000-05:00

This was written by a fellow pastor:

While watching a documentary on violence and self-defense I saw a scene that contained a road sign which stated: "Warning, Smash and Grab Area." It got me to thinking....

On Jan 20 the following will immediately become a "smash and grab" area for the new administration:
- abortion limitations
- oil and gas drilling
- stem cell research
- tax dollars for abortion

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for Congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” John D. Podesta, a top transition leader, said Sunday. “He (Barack Hussein Obama) feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”

PRAY FOR GOD'S INTERVENTION
PRAY FOR GOD'S PROTECTION

PRAY FOR BOLDNESS FOR THE LORD'S PASTORS & CHURCHES (added by me - RGH)

McCain / Palin

2008-08-29T16:13:00.001-04:00

Unrestrained - Judges Gone Wild

2008-06-05T15:32:00.000-04:00

Once again the California Supreme Court displayed a total lack of judicial restraint today when it denied a request to put the creation of same-sex "marriage" on hold until Californians go to the polls in November. As we reported yesterday, the petition was certified with far more signatures than California requires, placing on the November ballot a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Refusal to "stay" the decision sets up a tangled legal web in which potentially thousands of same-sex "marriages" may be legally unrecognizable when and if the amendment is approved by voters. Homosexual activists have set the stage for legal theater and will tell voters that it's up to them to prevent it by playing along with the court's creation. Voters in California must realize that the court's irresponsibility does not negate their responsibility to provide the needed checks and balances to the court by upholding the historic and biblical definition of marriage for the good of all society.

It's Not Easy Being Green

2008-06-04T11:00:00.000-04:00

When Congress adjourned for Memorial Day recess, marriage was in disarray, gas prices were soaring, circuit courts sat empty, and our troops were still waiting for funding to replenish supplies. Now, fresh off a holiday weekend in which most families paid $4 a gallon to drive to neighborhood barbecues, American patience has worn thin. Imagine the frustration this week, as Congress returned to work--not on judges, marriage, or the war supplemental bill--but on changing the weather. By a 74-14 vote, the Senate agreed to devote days to the Lieberman-Warner legislation on global warming. Desperate to prove their environmental mettle, liberals are fighting for a policy that would bankrupt the economy and burden American taxpayers. The leadership says its goal is to slash CO2 emissions by almost 20 percent in 12 years, but conservatives argue the cost to American businesses and taxpayers far outweighs the negligible climate benefit. The bill's 500 pages are a complicated mess of distorted science, pork projects, and a tax-and-trade solution that will send U.S. jobs overseas and result in the most massive expansion of the federal government since the New Deal. In just 10 years, the tax burden to American families would skyrocket by $1 trillion. The average American would face higher heating and cooling bills, more pain at the pump, and expensive consumer products. From the less fortunate, the bill saps even more. As Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) points out in the Wall Street Journal, the poorest Americans already spend almost a fifth of their monthly budget on energy. By 2030, gas prices could climb anywhere from 45 cents to $1, and the U.S. economy would be on the hook for an extra $4.8 trillion. And for what? Even environmental advocates admit that in the end these concessions may do nothing to affect the earth's climate. After 40 years of Lieberman-Warner, the most that the Environmental Protection Agency is willing to promise is a one percent reduction in CO2 emissions. To hardworking Americans who are struggling to provide for their children, this entire debate is baffling. Sen. Inhofe, who has fought this global warming hysteria since 2003, challenged his colleagues to get back to business. "Will you dare stand on the Senate floor in these uncertain economic times and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump, losing millions of American jobs, creating a huge new bureaucracy and raising taxes by record amounts?" Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this bill is that the evidence is still very inconclusive about the climate threat. If anything is heating up, it's marriage. This Congress is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the real crises facing this nation as they refuse to intervene.

Power of Attorneys

2008-06-03T10:11:00.000-04:00

The weeks leading up to June 16 in California are proving to be anxious ones for both sides of the marriage debate. On that Monday, the state Supreme Court will announce whether homosexual pairs can wed immediately or whether California will hold off on implementing its decision until voters cast their ballots on the marriage protection amendment in November. While homosexual activists are already claiming victory, pro-marriage allies from across the nation are bolstering the court's case for "staying" the ruling. The attorneys general of nine states, all of whom have a stake in the outcome of the June decision, urged the justices not to instigate same-sex "marriage" until the November election. In a strong showing, the attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah echoed our concern that a premature walk down California's aisle could mean legal bedlam in several states. Unlike Massachusetts, California law allows couples from other states to obtain marriage licenses. If out-of-state couples exchange vows before November, then travel home and sue their home state for recognition, American courts will be tied up for years trying to sort out what was preventable chaos. For the 26 states with marriage protection amendments, homosexual activists face an uphill battle even if the June 16 outcome is favorable to them. Last week, we witnessed the potency of a marriage amendment in Oregon when a federal court threw out a legal challenge to the state's definition of marriage. On Friday, a Wisconsin court followed with a second blow to same-sex "marriage" by dismissing a lawsuit to overturn the Badger State's marriage amendment. While everyone from Macy's bridal registry to New York Gov. David Paterson (D) is trying to accommodate same-sex weddings, public opinion is still opposed to gay "marriage." On Thursday, the Pew Research Center announced the results of a new poll in which "28 percent of voters view the issue as 'very important' in their decision about who [sic] to vote for in the fall." Despite cries that the issue is losing traction, Pew's research shows that the resistance to same-sex "marriage" has held steady since 2004. This is certain to trouble most Democrats leading up to the general election, particularly since large pockets of that opposition reside in one of their most reliable voting blocs--black and Hispanic women. As Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute says, "...Democrats always say social issues have gone away and they never do. They [haven't] gone away since 1968."

Come On Down ToThe Farm

2008-05-21T20:55:00.000-04:00

This song gets "straight" to the point.

Come On Down To The Farm

War Bill Supplements Planned Parenthood

2008-05-21T18:40:00.001-04:00

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a funny way of expressing his appreciation for our troops this Memorial Day. Rather than honoring our soldiers with the funding they need, the Senate is stuffing the war supplemental bill with pro-abortion paybacks for groups like Planned Parenthood. By fattening up the legislation with controversial earmarks, the leadership has not only jeopardized the timetable for the bill's passage but raised the possibility that it will not pass at all. Despite the urgent needs of our servicemen, Reid and his liberal allies are more concerned about funding the war against the unborn than the war in Iraq. The bill is rolling in pork, including a provision that would give groups like Planned Parenthood a big discount on contraceptives and Plan B, which can act as an abortifacient. It would also be a massive cash cow for university health centers, which would also be eligible for a discount on such drugs. Keep in mind that these clinics already make profits on the pills when they mark them up for resale. Nor are many of the recipients suffering in the financial department, thanks to a hefty investment of your hard-earned tax dollars. So the $165 billion question is: What does any of this have to do with Iraq? Absolutely nothing. Reid's personal political agenda is exposing our active-duty troops to new risks as they wait on Congress to duke out the abortion provisions. The bill is bloated with millions of dollars in other unnecessary pet projects for infrastructure, health care, NASA, and more. Until Democrats put their anti-war vendetta aside and both parties rein in spending, the supplemental faces failure on the floor or due to the President's veto pen. Contact your Senators today and remind them that this is no time to make a political statement. Now is the time to support our troops!

California Marriage Law: 4,618,673 to Four

2008-05-15T19:52:00.000-04:00

After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex "marriage." By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex "marriage" on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts', in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November. If the court cared at all about the democratic process, it would have stayed its decision until the people's voice was heard on the November amendment. Instead, these justices trampled on the legislature and created same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. This is nothing more than a judicial shotgun wedding that forces a redefinition of marriage on the people of California and potentially the rest of the nation. We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only then will this campaign to shatter the family's foundation be ended once and for all.

Making The Exodus From Public School Indoctrination

2008-04-24T11:48:00.000-04:00

by Cal Thomas

The government schools want to shape a child’s mind in ways that reflect a mostly liberal, humanistic worldview. This has implications for a child’s understanding of economics, foreign policy, American history and the size and purpose of government, in addition to what once was know as “traditional values.” It is about reflecting the worldview of the teachers unions, who are in the pocket of the Democratic Party. In other words, the Left uses public schools to produce the next generation of Democrats.

The tragedy is that too many conservative Christian, Republican parents who want their children to have a different worldview -- their own -- willingly participate in the destruction of their children’s minds by turning them over to a way of thinking that is antithetical to their beliefs. Parents who worship at conservative churches on Sunday willingly send their children to schools five days a week where what they are taught undermines what they learned in church and at home. They would never think of taking their kids to a church that teaches doctrines opposed to their beliefs, but they don’t give a second thought to doing the same thing by sending them to government schools. It makes no sense.

Mr. Gleason (a California minister who urges parents to take their children out of public schools) has found it difficult to start a fire among conservative Christians because apathy is like wet underbrush. But he is undeterred. He thinks that like those other fires with which California is familiar, the best time to get out is while you still can.

What the Liberals Think of the Lord's Churches

2008-04-16T14:11:00.001-04:00

Click the picture to enlarge.

Change We Can't Believe In

2008-04-12T10:06:00.000-04:00

Responding to accusations that his campaign has been too quiet on homosexual issues, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) stated his views in detail in one of his most pointed interviews to date. Sitting down with reporters from the gay magazine The Advocate, Obama was frank about the major current issues. Here is the Democratic frontrunner in his own words:

"I have actually been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history... I reasonably can see 'don't ask, don't tell' eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law... The third thing I believe I can get done is in dealing with federal employees, making sure that their benefits, that their ability to transfer health or pension benefits the same way that opposite-sex couples do, is something that I'm interested in making happen... And finally, an area that I'm very interested in is making sure that federal benefits are available to same-sex couples who have a civil union... I, for a very long time, have been interested in a repeal of DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act]."

WHAT IS AL GORE GOING TO DO NOW?

2008-02-29T14:08:00.000-05:00

WHAT IS AL GORE GOING TO DO NOW? ARE WE GOING TO TAKE BACK THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FROM HIM?

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Getting the Facts Straight on Pro-Gay Pamphlet

2008-02-27T11:57:00.000-05:00

A joint project by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) is giving parents 16,000 new reasons to question the agenda of national teachers' union leaders. The NEA and APA have partnered to produce a booklet titled, "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth," which they plan to distribute to every superintendent in America's 16,000 school districts. Among the so-called "facts" in the 24-page document is the opinion, that homosexuality is "a normal expression of human sexuality." The booklet also warns teachers not to discuss "transformational ministries" that suggest homosexuality is a condition that can be changed. Religious-based views are regarded as harmful, if not dangerous. This is no surprise to those who have followed the leftward drift of the NEA leadership. For years, the organization has used teachers' dues to subsidize its top officials' left-wing fanaticism, which includes everything from promoting homosexuality and abortion in schools to pushing birth control. The APA is no better. In the past few decades, the group has gone from listing homosexuality as a mental disorder to becoming one of its biggest champions in the public square. Now both groups are using their influence to transform public schools into incubators for their radical social agendas. These lessons in political correctness must stop! Log on to www.frc.org and download the real facts about "Homosexuality in Your Child's School."

A Recession of Confidence

2008-01-09T13:19:00.000-05:00

(From the Family Research Council)
An advanced degree in economics is not necessary to understand the current challenges to America's economy. A simple trip to the gas pump is an education in itself. While oil prices are up the latest employment numbers are down. The Federal Reserve has reduced interest rates three times in the last year in an attempt to prevent the economy from stalling. Before leaving for his Mideast peace pursuit, President Bush acknowledged the economic trouble and said he was considering a stimulus package to jumpstart the economy. The biggest challenge for our economy comes when consumer confidence drops. A proven measure that can help stabilize the economy would be to act now to make permanent President Bush's 2002 tax cuts that eliminated the marriage tax penalty and increased the per child tax credit. While the economy is sputtering the liberal majority on Capitol Hill is counting the new money they will have when the tax breaks for families expire in 2010. Since 2002, when the President's tax relief first kicked in, America has experienced 65 months of uninterrupted growth. If congressional leaders hope to ease this wave of uncertainty, they would be wise to stop fueling it with strategies that increase the tax burden on the American family. Rather than wasting valuable time debating temporary solutions, why not pursue what continues to be the best stimulus for growth--making the President's tax cuts permanent? While liberals argue that the country can't "afford" permanency, America is fast approaching a situation where we can't afford not to have it. For the first time in almost 20 years we have a president who believes that tax cuts and reform are important issues. If now is not the time to enact full and permanent tax relief for families, when is?

Thought Crime ('Hate Crime') Laws: Unnecessary and a Threat to Free Speech

2007-08-31T14:24:00.000-04:00

Thought Crime ('Hate Crime') Laws: Unnecessary and a Threat to Free Speech

1. Penalizing Thoughts Instead of Actions. So-called "hate crime" legislation would have a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings.

Currently proposed federal "hate crime" legislation would only authorize direct federal prosecution of those who cause or attempt to cause "bodily injury." However, such acts are already crimes, regularly prosecuted and punished under state or local laws. The offender's politically incorrect thoughts or opinions alone would make such crimes a federal offense.
The proposed bill would allow federal authorities to assist in state or local prosecution of any "crime of violence," which is interpreted more broadly and includes even offenses where no physical force is used, but there is merely a "risk that physical force . . . may be used."
The Hate Crimes Reporting Act of 1990 mandated that the statistics collected by the FBI define "hate crimes" more broadly still, to include even acts of "intimidation" (which can be as simple as name-calling). Approximately half the "hate crimes" in the FBI statistics are in this category. Once the principle of punishing thoughts as well as actions is established, it will be a simple matter to broaden definitions until thoughts and speech alone trigger prosecution.
"Intimidation" has already been broadly interpreted to include the public criticism of homosexuality, as in the case of 11 Christian protesters charged under a Pennsylvania "ethnic intimidation" law on Oct. 10, 2004. The defendants were charged for peacefully protesting at a "gay pride" rally and faced imprisonment and huge fines before their case was dismissed.
Michael McGough, senior editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, writes "The best argument against 'enhanced penalty' laws is the constitutional one. In the United States, we are taught, you can be sent to prison for what you do but not for what you think. Not only that, if government picks and chooses which crimes are the most serious based on the motivation behind them or the ethnic background of the victim, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment, isn't it?" ("There's little to like about hate-crime laws," Los Angeles Times, February 19, 2007).

2. Federal Intrusion into State & Local Law Enforcement. Currently proposed "Hate Crime" legislation empowers the federal government to intervene and prosecute alleged "hate crimes" anywhere in the country, thus usurping the prerogative of state and local law enforcement. Federal hate crimes bureaucrats can intervene and claim jurisdiction in localities which lack "hate crime" laws, or where those laws are judged not to be zealously enforced.

3. Sexual Orientation "Hate Crimes" - A Manufactured Crisis. According to FBI data (Crime in the United States, 2004, and Hate Crime Statistics, 2004), anti-homosexual "hate crimes" account for a miniscule fraction of total crimes in the United States:

Of the 16,137 murders that occurred in 2004, one (.006 percent) was classified as a "bias motivation" because of the sexual orientation of the victim.
None of the 94,635 forcible rapes that occurred in 2004 (0 percent) were reported as being a result of bias motivation because of the victim's sexual orientation.
Of the 854,911 aggravated assaults in 2004, 181 (.02 percent) were classified as bias motivation because of the victim's sexual orientation.

4. Most Alleged "Hate Crimes" are Not Serious Violent Crimes.

Intimidation: One-half (50.1 percent) of all bias-motivated offenses against persons involved the crime of intimidation, defined as the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without using a weapon or subjecting the individual to actual physical attack.
Simple assault: Another 31 percent of bias-motivated offenses involved simple assault, which is a physical attack not involving the use of a weapon, and where the victim does not suffer obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury.

Does the rare incidence of violent "hate crimes" justify the creation through legislation of an entire new class of crime?

5. The Myth that 'Hate Crimes' Are Not Being Prosecuted. Proponents of "hate crime" legislation have not substantiated the assertion that state and local authorities are failing to prosecute such crimes. Ironically, in the most high profile case for hate crimes legislation, the murder of Matthew Shepard, the killers were convicted and sentenced to double life sentences without parole. Only the pleas of Shepard's parents persuaded the judge to spare Henderson and McKinney the death penalty.

Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies, at the Family Research Council.

Hate "Hate Crimes" Legislation

2007-06-08T14:09:00.000-04:00

Americans have observed with horror how hate crimes legislation overseas has been used as a license to persecute Christians. Here at home, the U.S. House is poised to make those fears a reality by expanding the current "hate crimes" law. This--more than any other issue--could destroy the freedom of speech as we know it. Hate crime laws trample free speech, lead to baseless arrests, and censor speech. More and more, liberals are trying to make it so that Christians have a harder time impacting America. When it all comes down to where the "rubber meats the road", "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29b)

Another Win for HUMAN LIFE

2007-06-08T14:05:00.000-04:00

We applaud our friends on the Hill for catching and turning back a deceptive bill by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo). Wednesday night DeGette attempted to sneak a bill through the process which she promoted as a human cloning ban. She put the bill into the legislative schedule at a time when no amendments (and relatively no debate) could be offered. Then, she and other liberals lobbied their colleagues by claiming that the bill would outlaw human cloning, when in fact, it would have given scientists carte blanch to clone embryos as long as the clones were destroyed. In other words, the legislation would have not only allowed cloning but required killing. The bill was so unpopular that Democrats couldn't even convince a majority to vote for their measure, let alone find the two-thirds votes necessary to move the bill forward. And it is no wonder, since 86% of the American people oppose the very cloning this bill pushed. Today, the House is poised to vote on S. 5, another bill that would require the destruction of human embryos for research. Considering yesterday's announcement that scientists had successfully transformed skin cells into stem cells that could eventually treat disease, expanding funds for unethical research seems seriously misguided. Money should be directed to pro-life alternatives that are treating people now. Rather than siphon money away from adult stem cell treatments which are actually benefiting patients, we should focus our resources on results.

Popular Science? Congress Revisits Stem Cells

2007-06-06T11:14:00.000-04:00

Congress hopes to cast another vote on the bill to expand taxpayer funds for research that destroys human embryos. In the House, leaders will decide whether or not to sign on to the Senate version of the bill, S. 5, which includes slight changes to the initial legislation. Since the House already approved an earlier bill, the vote is simply political theater. In an effort to preemptively rebuke the President's veto, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is using the vote as a public relations stunt to showcase Congress's approval for the research. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which owns the patents to human embryonic stem cells as well as to the process of destroying embryos to get the cells, is fighting to maintain its grisly monopoly after the Patent & Trade Office has indicated it could revoke the patents. The patents provide significant royalties, allowing WARF to profit, with government sanction, from their original embryo destructive research--even if it never yields useful treatments. Is it just me or is something wrong with that picture? While Congress fritters away its time on science that has yielded little in the way of real treatments, the journal Cell Proliferation has published a study on adult stem cells extracted from the umbilical cords of newborns. According to the article, those "adult" cells have been successfully engineered to produce insulin and could soon be used to treat diabetes patients. If Congress is going to spend our hard-earned money, I suggest they put it to better use and fund true progress like this!

Great Must-Read Article

2007-04-27T13:05:00.000-04:00

Please take time and read the following article written by Ronnie Wolfe, Pastor of First Baptist Church, Harrison, OH.

Jerimiah 5:21

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

2007-04-26T18:12:00.001-04:00

What is Constitutional Interpretation?: The Supreme Court has the difficult job of applying the U.S. Constitution to situations in today's world. Constitutional Interpretation is the specific way that judges understand the text of the Constitution - what they believe it means.

Each of the Supreme Court judges uses one of several different judicial philosophies when hearing and deciding controversial cases. Variations in the judges' philosophies have led to important split decisions in recent years.

For example:

In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court voted 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortions.

In Lee v. Weisman(1992), the Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that public school officials violated the First Amendment if they sponsored religious prayers at graduation ceremonies.

The Philosophies: This article will look at four basic philosophies, or methods, of constitutional interpretation:

Conservative:

The Originalist Philosophy
The Literalist Philosophy
Liberal:
The Modernist Philosophy
The Instrumentalist Philosophy

The Originalist / Original Intent Philosophy: Originalists interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers intended it to mean when they wrote it. The Constitution is a legal document, they argue. It's a contract. It's original intent is everything. Originalists go to the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to understand the original meaning of the Constitution.

Originalists on the Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

The Literalist / Strict Constructionist Philosophy: Strict Constructionists read the law according to the literal definitions of the words involved. They do not try to infer the Framers' intent behind the words, but stick to the meanings of the actual words used.

Literalists on the Supreme Court: John Roberts and the late great William Rehnquist

The Modernist Philosophy: Modernists look at the Constitution as a "living" document. Its intents and purposes are free to change with the society it governs. Modernists argue that the Framers had no ability to foresee the various ways that future citizens might be oppressed. Judges have the responsibility to "fill in the gaps" to protect Americans from legislative tyranny by striking down laws that restrict fundamental human rights.

Instrumentalist Philosophy: Instrumentalists also see the Constitution as a living document. Instrumentalists try to apply the Constitution in the way that is most practical for contemporary society, regardless of the original intent of the document or strict definitions of its words.

Modernists/Instrumentalists on the Supreme Court: John Paul Stevens, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

Liberal Swipes: Modernists consider the Originalist approach too rigid. The overwhelming purpose of the Constitution, they argue, is to protect liberty. Judges can head off a potential crisis by dealing with "bad" laws quickly, rather than waiting for the long amendment process to bring about what they consider a needed change.

Conservative Parries: Originalists and Constitutional Constructionists contend that the Constitution is a legal document, and is meant to provide rigidity. That's what structure is all about. They believe that Modernists usurp power that belongs to Congress by legislating from the bench. Non-elected judges, they argue, should not be making moral or ethical decisions for the country. Those decisions should be made by the elected representatives in the Legislative Branch - who answer to the citizens.

Conclusion:

Let's say Betsy agrees to take care of Joe's tortoise under the condition that she keep it in a "cool" location - that is, a moderately cold spot away from her furnace. It would be unfair for Joe to later say, "Hey. You need to jazz up my tortoise's tank per the 'cool' clause of our agreement." It might be good for the tortoise to have a jazzed up tank, but that was not part of the bargain Joe and Betsy made.

The Constitution is a contract between the states and the U.S. federal government. The terms of the contract need to retain the same meaning they had when the contract was signed, or it loses its true authority. The elected members of Congress are capable of writing the laws necessary to deal with a changing society. Non-elected justices should not step in and take that power for themselves.

"If you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year;… if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society — if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask."

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Public Schools And Religious Freedom

2007-04-26T16:36:00.000-04:00

Introduction: While there are certain guidelines to follow, religion is still a legitimate subject for the classroom, one that both teachers and students may discuss. The "separation of church and state" crowd has worked to completely remove God from the school setting, but students and teachers still have the right to bring Him in – in many ways:

Freedom Of Speech: The Supreme Court has ruled that students retain their freedom of speech when they walk through the school doors. According to the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, a school may only silence students if they are actually disrupting school discipline. So, a student may not harass other students about religion or interrupt class with Moses impressions.

Free Time: However, during free time, students are at liberty to:

Read their Bibles
Talk to peers about religion and pray with their peers
Wear clothing with religious symbols and messages
Even pass out religious tracts

As long as students are not acting out in a disruptive manner, they retain their freedom of expression.

Equal Access: According to the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, faith-based clubs have the same rights to public school facilities as other noncurriculum clubs (like the chess club or the classical music club). Religious clubs are also guaranteed official recognition, which means the school must allow them access to the school newspaper, bulletin boards, and the public announcement system.

Any Exceptions?: Religious clubs must be student-initiated and student-led. The students may invite outside speakers, but the club must be organized and led by the students themselves.

In the Classroom: Religion is a major influence in history, politics, and the human experience in general. Because it has educational value, students and teachers may discuss religion in class. Teachers must maintain a neutral position with the students, but students are free to offer their own personal opinions on religious matters.

What About Assignments?: Students may write papers on religious subjects, including the Bible. The Bible has had an enormous impact on history and literature and is an important book to know, even from a secular viewpoint. Literature from Shakespeare to Faulkner is full of allusions that can only be fully appreciated with a working knowledge of the biblical text.

Teachers: Teachers represent the government while in the public school classroom and at school events. Teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, and may discuss religious topics with their own peers, but they must be careful not to "force their religion" on the students. At the same time, teachers may not discourage students' religious activity when it falls within legal guidelines.

Can They Teach About Religion?: Teachers do have a lot of freedom to teach about religion for educational purposes. They may teach on comparative religions, including Christianity. They may discuss the impact religion has had on history and science and literature. They may even discuss religion with students one-on-one, if the student initiates and maintains the conversation and is not compelled to agree with the teacher's position.

In Conclusion: There is a growing understanding that the intellect is not the only part of the human person, but that students do have a spiritual side that also needs to be fed. Schools have the freedom to allow students to express their spiritual side and to seek to nourish it.

The 180 Days????

2007-04-26T14:56:00.000-04:00

Christians in Politics

2007-04-26T14:38:00.000-04:00

More and more, Christians are expressing concern over the moral drift of our nation and an increasing frustration over not knowing what they can do about it. Many wonder about the role of the pastor, the role of the local church, and the role of the individual believer. This section is intended to provide some answers on this important subject.

Why should Christians get involved?

A consistent trait throughout history is that societies to break down, decay, and eventually disappear. It is also true that a society cannot operate long in a moral vacuum. When people of good conscience fail to influence society with their values, other influences will fill the gap. This has happened in America. In the past one hundred years, most fundamental Christians have left the political arena, considering it "worldly" and outside the legitimate realm of Christian influence.

What have been the results?

Tragic consequences abound: Divorce rates, epidemics in drug and alcohol abuse, the horror of abortion and the widespread acceptance of nearly every form of sexual perversion. We can also add to this list the growing corruption within government itself and the increasingly hostile attitude of the state toward the Church.

Christians need to be involved in the political process in order to have a positive effect on the future of our communities and our nation. It is poor citizenship and poor Christian stewardship to permit this great nation to plunge on toward destruction by default.

Is political involvement Scriptural?

Much is made of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned specifically that Christians should participate in politics. The assumption is made that unless the Bible clearly says we should - we should not. However, integrity to Scripture demands that we acknowledge that the Bible nowhere condemns involvement in politics. According to Romans 13:6,7, Paul's view of government was positive, that it is a God-given instrument for the promotion of good and a restraint to evil. I Timothy 2:1-2 records Paul's admonition that we pray for our government leaders. It is a serious mistake to take this passage as only having application to the Sunday morning pastoral prayer. Paul surely meant our prayers for civil leaders should encompass more than a general petition for God's blessing. In Romans 16:23, Paul relates a greeting from Erastus, the city treasurer. Some commentators say that this was an elected position which gave the official responsibility over all public works as well as the city treasury. There is not the slightest indication that Paul considered Erastus outside the will of God.

Politics, in the strict sense, relates to the art of governing. It is doubtful that any Christian would advocate a total absence of government. Of all the people who should hold positions of authority, it should be those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and committed to the absolute authority of Scripture.

What about separation of Church and State?

Our national constitution was not framed with a view toward excluding Christians from civil affairs. Rather, it was written to exclude the formation of a state church or religion. Furthermore, separation of church and state cannot be taken to mean that when a Christian seeks public office he must place his faith into a blind trust. To do so would be to compartmentalize Christianity - separate life into the secular and sacred, which is impossible for the committed Christian.

What does federal law allow churches to do?

For the most part, fundamental churches are recognized by the IRS as non-profit, tax-exempt religious organizations. Within the guidelines for 501(c)3 organizations it is legal for churches to engage in the following activities:

Voter registration and education. A church may engage in or spend money for non-partisan voter registration and voter education activities, so long as those activities are not intended to benefit any particular candidate or political party.
Conduct public candidate forums. A church may hold public political forums for the purpose of discussing election issues, debating political or social matters, or hearing several candidates present their views, so long as all viable candidates for that office are invited.
Introduce candidates at services. The candidate may only be introduced, or invited to deliver a message, lead in prayer, or read Scripture. The candidate may not ask for support or funds to be used in his campaign.
Circulate petitions and lobby. A church may spend up to twenty percent of its time and annual budget circulating petitions and engaging in other legislative activities, such as lobbying. Such steps are intended to influence the outcome of legislation.

What does federal law prohibit?

Briefly, federal law prohibits 501(c)3 organizations from engaging in activities designed to specifically influence the outcome of elections:

Establish a political action committee (PAC)
Contribute to political parties or candidates
Endorse candidates.

Nothing, however, prohibits individuals in the church (including the pastor) from participation in any of these activities.