Fort Hood

By now, extensive news coverage has been given to the incident that occurred on Thursday of last week at Fort Hood, Texas. A gunman who, as it turns out, is an Army psychiatrist and a Muslim who had previously voiced serious opposition to being deployed overseas to fight America's war on Islamic terrorism opened fire at a medical screening facility on the east Texas base, killed thirteen people and wounded another 29.


Heartbreak does not even begin to describe what I feel over the fact that twelve families of American soldiers will never again see their son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father, or relative again because of the heinous actions of this individual. My heart breaks for them and my prayers go out to them as they mourn the loss of their loved one. As a fellow chaplain, my prayers also go out to the Army chaplains and other care providers who will no doubt be faced with many counseling and ministry opportunities in the coming months and even years. May they be blessed with the ability to listen first and foremost and to speak words of healing and truth into the lives of hurting people.


However, I would be remiss in overlooking the obvious: not only is this arguably the most horrific act of violence and terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11, it is also yet another indication of our inability and unwillingness to protect ourselves from terrorism in the name of political correctness. According to the ABC link below, Major Hasan tried to make contact with a prominent al-Qaeda leader within the U.S. The Army was informed of this, yet they obviously were unable/unwilling to do much (if anything) to prevent what happened. And innocent people died as a result.

Why? Has it really gotten to the point where someone with ties to anti-American extremism and violence against innocent people can become a high-ranking member of the U.S. Armed Services and, without so much as a second glance, unleash hell against those he is sworn to fight alongside and protect...ON AN AMERICAN MILITARY BASE??!!

If so, then I suggest we no longer even bother to fight al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other anti-freedom forces abroad because we certainly do not seem willing to secure our own homefront against them at home.

I'm not even bull-crapping. What is the point of convincing the rest of the world that our values dictate freedom and security against Islamofascist thugs if we do not demonstrate those values within our borders? What is the point of sending soldiers, sailors, and marines to faraway places to literally give their lives in defeating terrorism if our own commander-in-chief is seen wringing his hands just days after the shooting and urging the American people not to "jump to conclusions" regarding the motives of the shooter...even though dozens of people heard him scream "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) just before he opened fire? As far as I'm concerned, his motives were crystal clear: kill as many American infidels as possible. Period.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not arguing that Islam (or any religion) should be outlawed, nor am I arguing that adherents to a particular faith tradition should be unfairly discriminated against. We still live in a free country where people can worship as they choose. As a Navy chaplain, I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to standing up for the constitutional rights of sailors and marines everywhere. But I refuse to sit back after this latest tragedy and behave as though individuals like Hasan should not be investigated more thoroughly before they are allowed to wear the uniform of this nation, as well as prosecuted swiftly, harshly, and justly when it becomes known that they have ties to anti-American forces. BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE.

As a Naval officer and patriotic American, I am furious not just because this tragedy happened, but because advance knowledge about the shooter's capabilities and proclivities was obviously shared with the right people and nothing was done to stop it. And patriotic American soldiers died because of it. On top of that, we're now once again hearing this same liberal song-and-dance about multiculturalism at the expense of our freedom and national security and you know what? I'm sick of it.

If anybody is reading this who has anything to do with preventing senseless tragedies like this from happening in the future, I have a message to you: get off the freaking sidelines and get in the game when it comes to fighting and defeating America's enemies AT HOME as well as abroad. Stop being part of the problem by sucking up to multiculturalists everywhere and realize that our enemies want to kill us and could give a rat's rear end about appeasement. They need to be located, closed with, and destroyed. Do you job and make it happen!

Please join me in prayer as we mourn together the loss of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who said "yes" to the call of service to their nation, only to be betrayed by those sworn to protect and serve alongside them. And pray that our government would get serious, once and for all, about defeating terrorism.

God bless.

http://news.aol.com/article/alleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik/758172?icid=mainmaindl1link3http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Falleged-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-malik%2F758172

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/06/national/main5551286.shtml

God, Guns and Updates on Freedom

Hello, blogosphere.

Well, to say that it's been a while since I've blogged would be an understatement of considerable proportions. But I'm back and have an update to share with you all as well as some news that, like always, is its own mixture of controversial, troubling, and what I hope is provocative enough to inspire action on the part of citizens everywhere. Remember, just because you're not famous or well-funded, you can still make a difference in your community, and indeed your world, just by becoming informed about the issues and involved in how they affect your community.


A Great Day for Mr. Lay

Case in point: Though it has been nearly a month (17 September to be exact) since their trial, I am still trying to find the words to describe the outpouring of community support for Frank Lay and Robert Freeman. For those that are not aware or may have forgotten, Lay and Freeman serve as principal and athletic director, respectively, at my high school alma mater, Pace High School. Back in January, they were accused of violating a temporary injunction handed down by federal Judge Casey Rodgers prohibiting them from "promoting religion in school." Their "violation": saying grace before a meal during an after-school function.

In what amounted to nothing more than a one-day trial and a considerable waste of taxpayer money, Mr. Lay and Coach Freeman were acquitted of the charges, which of course was the right decision. And I, for one, am thankful to God for giving Judge Rodgers the discernment to see it as such and make that decision.

However, the ruling is just part of the story. As I said before, the real story is the community support that was thrown behind these two singular men of faith. Last time I checked, over $70,000 was given to a legal defense fund set up on their behalf, dozens of opinion articles were submitted to the Pensacola News Journal in their support, internet campaigns were mobilized, and countless t-shirts, signs and other memorabilia were printed and distributed.

At the end of the day, a "not guilty" verdict was handed down and a community was reminded that freedom is alive and well. Not only this, but we were also reminded that attempts to squelch freedom will not be taken sitting down when an informed and passionate citizenry is mobilized. Many thanks to those who volunteered their time, efforts and money to help these two courageous individuals and my personal congratulations to Mr. Lay and Coach Freeman.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/1910-criminalizing-prayer




Profile in Courage

I like Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

For a while, I've been intrigued by the duplicity of liberals who claim the moral high ground when it comes to "obeying the law." For example, if a high school principal asks his athletic director to pray before a meal (sound familiar?) then it's a violation of the law in accordance with the injunction handed down by the court. But flip that argument around and make it about protecting the Mexican borders, and in the minds of some, it's fair game for Mexican immigrants to cross over our borders unhindered, commit crimes, and generally speaking make a bigger mockery of our laws than Frank Lay and Robert Freeman could ever dream of making.

Enter Sheriff Arpaio from Maricopa County, Arizona. His jurisdiction sits right on the Mexican border in Arizona and so his point of view is ground zero for observing just how big a problem illegal immigration has become.

Right?

Not if you believe the Department of Homeland Security, which has now handed down a new policy that effectively ties the hands of any local jurisdiction in helping to deter illegal immigration across the southern border. Never mind how acutely affected these local communities (many of which are vulnerable to violent crime) may be. Local sheriffs and law enforcement officials who attempt to arrest or otherwise deter illegal immigrants could now face prosecution for their actions. None of this, however, is going to stop Sheriff Joe who has vowed to personally drive any illegal immigrants back to the border himself if he catches them in his jurisdiction. Read the Fox News article below if you don't believe me.

This guy is certainly no stranger to controversy. He has been featured in the news before for his tough-guy approach to crime, forcing inmates to wear pink and work on chain gangs. And if this story is any indication, he's made a few enemies along the way also.

Predictably, the civil rights howlers have added their shrill voices to the debate and have attempted to cast Sherrif Joe as a modern-day Archie Bunker or Bull Connor whose claim to fame is simply trampling the rights of Latinos. My challenge to them is to successfully pitch that argument to the 76-year old female victim of Arnold Mancia-Morales (see link below). That is, of course, provided that they can actually get the poor woman to talk...you know, since she's been indefinitely traumatized from the 2008 breaking-and-entering/sexual assault that she suffered at the hands of Mr. Mancia-Morales, an illegal alien from Honduras.

It is truly often quite difficult to determine which side these people are on. Do they really care more about the civil rights of those who have broken the law, or do they care about protecting the rights of innocent American citizens (many of whom immigrated to this country LEGALLY) while upholding the law of the land?

In any case, it is refreshing to see someone as principled as Joe Arpaio in a position of leadership, particularly where it involves protecting innocent lives of those he's sworn to protect. I'll support him in any way I can and I hope you will too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/arizona-sheriff-vows-continue-immigration-sweeps-despite-federal-downgrade/?test=latestnews

http://www.alipac.us/article4539.html


"Go ahead. Make my (Sun)day."

I think I may have saved the most intriguing story in this blog for last. Thanks to the efforts of Pastor Ken Pagano of Louisville, KY, and others, a new initiative is under way to ensure that those attending houses of worship are protected from violent physical attack.

According to the Fox News story listed below, Pagano has resigned as pastor of New Bethel Church in Louisville, KY to pursue a career aimed at "keeping worshippers safe." Essentially, he is seeking to promote second amendment rights as they relate to churches and presumably to pastors and their congregants as they attend worship. The article does not specify exactly what measures Pagano is going to take, but presumably his efforts will be at least partially conjoined with those of the National Rifle Association as well as other organizations with similar interests.

Pagano has certainly not been shy about promoting gun ownership and second amendment rights among his congregation. For example, at their "Open Carry Celebration," congregants can enter their names in a raffle to win a free handgun. Whereas many congregations would look unfavorably upon "guns in church," New Bethel Church seems to welcome a Bible in one hand and a Glock .9mm in the other.

His church's pro-gun activity aside, it's Pagano's decision to become an activist for the second amendment that concerns me. Of course, I would be lying if I said that it didn't create a dilemma of sorts for me. Because on one hand, I'm an annually renewing member of the NRA and a staunch supporter of second amendment rights. Thus, I take a backseat to few when it comes to opposing anti-gun legislation and ensuring that the second amendment rights of American citizens stay intact. And like Pagano, I'm concerned (I should say INCREASINGLY concerned) about the safety of congregants and particularly pastors (see the "Global" link below).

But, again like Pagano, I'm also a minister of the gospel of Christ. And I can't help but wonder if his calling as an activist for gun rights is taking precedence over his calling to preach the gospel. In a day and age where pastors committed to their call from God to "preach the Word" are in increasingly short supply, and in a culture and world that is increasingly devoid of Judeo-Christian influence, is it more imperative that men like Pagano take on opponents of the Second Amendment or opponents (visible and invisible) of the Kingdom of God?

Yes, physical safety is important to every congregation. People should feel safe when they attend worship on Sundays. But it is the foremost and penultimate responsibility of the preacher to ensure the SPIRITUAL health and well-being of his congregation above all else. It is in fact his responsibility to ensure that, come what may, his people have a greater fear of Him who is "able to destroy body and soul" rather than of those who are able to "destroy the body, but not the soul" (Matthew 10:28).


Truthfully, I hope Pastor Pagano realizes that what is of utmost importance is not whether or not his people can defend themselves from physical attack. But whether they can face the day, when gun rights have been completely eliminated (which they might, despite his and others' best efforts), and they face the barrel end of a gun that isn't theirs. What will they answer when the person wielding that gun demands that they renounce their faith or be executed?


A lot of it depends on how faithful men like him and myself have been to our God-given calling to preach the gospel "in season and out" (2 Timothy 4:2).


I will certainly not get in the way of Pastor Pagano. I appreciate his concern for the health and safety of his church members and I'm on board with him 100% about the second amendment and gun rights. But I hope he's making the right decision from an eternal standpoint. And I hope he's as committed to preaching the Word as he is to defending the second amendment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564341,00.html?test=latestnews

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=9968925

Next Blog

I hate to say it, but it may be a while yet before I get to write again. If things go according to plan, I should be at Ft. Jackson, SC this time next week on temporary active duty orders from the U.S. Navy, where I'll round out the remainder of my training as a Navy chaplain candidate. Hopefully, however, it won't be as long as last time before the next entry, though. Have a great week and God bless!

Let Freedom Croak

Eventful week, to say the least.


America: Love It or...Deny It.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522659,00.html

The multicultural direction this country is taking is starting to get ridiculous. At what point can a private citizen who simply loves her country, her military, and those family members of hers who have served (and are serving) in the military be told that the banner under which those family members are fighting is somehow offensive and must be stricken from the landscape?

The answer is simply this: it's the same point at which individual freedoms are rolled back in favor of multicultural preferences.

The story below is one that must be read in order to be believed...and even then you almost find yourself checking it out on snopes.com. Debbie McLucas walked into work one day, was met by her supervisor and was told that the American flag which she displays prominently at her office had to be taken down (just before Memorial Day weekend, no less) because a few of her multicultural co-workers had complained that it was offensive.

You read that right: these people denounced the very flag which stands for the country that affords them the very freedom and prosperity that they enjoy; the same country that, presumably for some of them, stands in sharp ideological contrast to the hellholes that some of them came from, thousands of miles away. And it wasn't enough for them to simply denounce the flag. In addition to that, they also managed to marginalize and threaten the freedoms that Debbie McLucas enjoys and that her family members fight for.

Where does it end? Or does it end?


Your Word Is A Lamp Unto My Feet...and a Threat to Civil Authority

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522637,00.html?test=latestnews

On and on it goes.

A pastor in San Diego and his wife can no longer have Bible study in their home because it violates a "code" that prohibits "religious assembly" without a "major use permit."

Again, feel free to access the above link just to see for yourself, because I know it's not enough just to take my word for this bunch of nonsense. However, in my own defense, I will say that even I'm not capable of making stuff like this up. Few if any people are.

This is turning out to be one of the shorter blogs that I've done (know you're disappointed) simply because there just isn't much you can say in the face of anti-American sentiment and the overall stifling of freedom demonstrated in these two stories. It's enough to leave the most eloquent among us at a loss for words.

But just for kicks, let's assume (hypothetically, of course) that a group of Muslims wanted to study the Koran in someone's private home. You can see where I'm going with this. Does anyone honestly believe that the civic authorities would do such a thing to such a gathering? And more to the point, can anyone imagine the outcry of the international community if such a thing was done to an Islamic gathering? But it's ok to do it to Christians.

Stand up for your rights, Americans...whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, or otherwise. Dwight Eisenhower put it best when he said, "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."

Patriot Victory

Now for some good news! :) If you're on myspace or facebook with me, you should know about this already, but I'll mention it again anyway...just as a formality. It is rather ironic that the two above stories broke this past week, concurrent with my announcement about the publication and release of my new novel Patriot Victory. It is my first novel and it is the story about a young man living in America during the year 2056; an America that any of us living today would scarcely recognize due to the secular-progressive influences that have encroached upon our way of life for so long.

I truly hope that you will purchase a copy today. My book's webpage can be accessed at www.xlibris.com/PatriotVictory. Purchasing information can be found there as well.

I say that it is ironic that the two featured stories in this week's blog broke concurrently with my book's release because much of what you read about in the context of the story I've written is what you see unfolding in these news stories. For example, in Patriot Victory the American flag is nowhere to be found on the American landscape in 2056 and Christianity is completely outlawed. Perhaps then I made a mistake when I made 2056 the setting of the story. If leftist influences have their say, real-life America may very well what you see in Patriot Victory in 2016...or sooner.

Have a great week! God bless.

The Declining Influence

"The declining influence of religion in national life erodes the virility of democracy." -Carl F.H. Henry

I was originally going to write this week's post similarly to the way I've written past ones; namely, with links to other stories and with personal commentary. However, something has happened (and indeed IS happening) in my hometown this week as Pace High School seniors repare to graduate. And I feel the need to weigh in on what I feel is about as shameful, un-American, and just downright wrong an injustice as could be done to a person or a group of American citizens.

Here goes.

Back in January, Judge Casey Rodgers issued a federal ruling, at the behest of the American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) stating that baccalaureate services during graduation week could not be organized by faculty and administrators...despite the fact that Pace High and just about every other school in the two-county area has done so for decades, without so much as a peep of opposition out of anyone...except the ACLU, of course. Their contention is that doing so violates the "no establishment" clause of the First Amendment.

I wrote a viewpoint column shortly thereafter that was published by the Pensacola News Journal and subsequently created quite a firestorm...not to mention a "debate" of sorts with a local attorney who strongly disagreed with me. My column and the one written afterward by the attorney can be read here.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=69080955&blogId=468140545

This week, however, the ACLU has taken their secular crusade a step further and is apparently threatening litigation if school officials allow "hand-picked" students, such as the class president and others to speak at graduation. In other words, students who are elected by the student body to REPRESENT the student body, according to the ACLU, are incapable of doing so because...well...because they might say something intolerant or pray in an intolerant way. That's why!

Let me just go ahead and say it: I know church-state relations is a controversial topic. I personally am against school- or any government-sponsored religion of any kind. Personally, I am in favor of an accomodation policy whereby the majority of students in a given school (not teachers, not government officials, and certainly not a federal judge backed by a rabble of litigators) determine what role and shape religion should play in their academic life. And that is precisely what takes place on a regular basis at Pace High School and that is precisely why I (along with so many others) am so enraged about this.

The students were not "hand-picked" by ANYONE, unless you count being democratically elected by the student body as being "hand-picked." And anybody familiar with Pace High School (which, by the way, pretty much disqualifies every lawyer at the ACLU) knows that those democratically-elected students leaders give an annual speech at graduation each year. So what is the problem?

Well, the problem is simply this: for years, the ACLU has set itself squarely against the religious heritage and principles that have been the very foundation of our nation's government and way of life. Their intent is to completely secularize America. And this not through democratically-elected processes, which historically is how decisions have been made regarding our national life, but through judicial fiat with activist lawyers and agenda-driven judges making the call. What results, of course, is a rendering of the public square devoid of any religious influence (particularly Judeo-Christian influence) and, as the above quote by the late Carl F.H. Henry states, an erosion of the vitality of our democracy. Make no mistake, the ACLU is succeeding step by miniscule step. And they are now succeeding in my backyard.

So what can we do? First of all, we can (no, we MUST) pray. Pray for Principal Frank Lay of Pace High School, who has truly become one of my heroes throughout this whole ordeal. His steadfast faith, decisive leadership, and commitment to the Bill of Rights is a model for us all to follow. Pray for Santa Rosa County superintendent Tim Wyrosdick who is having to make perhaps some career decisions regarding the events of recent days. Pray for strength and wisdom for him. Pray for Judge Casey Rodgers, that God would change her heart about the decisions that she's made, give her a repentant spirit and give her wisdom regarding future decisions. And pray the same for those who work for the ACLU.

Our God is still sovereign and HE IS ABLE!

Secondly, we need to get involved. If you're on facebook, then the best way I can tell you to insert yourself into this citizen movement is to join the group "Let them speak." Some reading this may already have joined...THANK YOU. For the rest, it's simple: go to facebook "search," type in "Let them speak," and join up once the page appears. If you want specific information about how to really be involved, you can contact Lauren Welch, the group moderator.

Please step up and help out any way you can. Maybe you've never even been to tiny Pace, FL and have no personal connection to Pace High School whatsoever. Don't let that be an excuse for not getting involved. We need you. We need your voice. America's heritage depends on it. Believe me, if the ACLU can have some success in this little corner of the Bible belt, imagine what they can do where you live. (That's not a knock on any particular area of the country, by the way. However, anybody that is familiar with Pace, FL knows first-hand what kind of evangelical influence this region has).

Let's defeat judicial tyranny together and send a message.

God bless.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/36568prs20080827.html

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090523/NEWS01/905230315&s=d&page=10

Graduation Day...tune in next week.

Dear readers,

In observance of Southern Seminary's graduation (which I will be participating in within hours), this week's edition of "Gibby Files" will be postponed until next week.

Thanks to all, however, for reading and please tune in next week.

God bless.

Dangerous Times for Freedom

Well, good day to everyone and if you're in Louisville, Happy Derby Weekend. It's been an eventful week and, as always, rooting out the headlines most worthy of discussion for this week's "Gibby Files" edition was no small task. Usually, I try to limit the topics to three a week at most. But because there were at least four that I thought should be mentioned, I'll add an extra one. Hopefully that will not dissuade you from reading this week's blog. 

Here we go. 

Censorship 101

Scenario: You're a high school student sitting in video production class, innocently browsing the news as part of an assignment, and suddenly you feel a shadow come over you. You turn around and there stands your teacher glaring sternly down at you. This alone is enough to induce heart palpitations and you quickly find yourself scrambling to determine what it is you've done that might merit swift retribution. 

"Am I chewing gum in class?" you muse. "No...check that one off." "Is my cell phone going off? Nope...another check." 

Soon, it becomes clear that your offense is far more grievous than gum-chewing and excessive talking; particularly more so in an age where American public schools are becoming more like indoctrination centers than actual institutions where learning and critical thinking are emphasized. 

No, my would-be high school friend. Your offense can be classified as none other than liberal high treason because you were (cue ominous music) LOOKING AT FOXNEWS.COM!!!

DA-DUN-DUN!!!

Fictional? Yes. Or maybe not so much. For it appears that an incident quite similar to my scenario above occurred earlier this week at Traverse City West High School in Traverse City, Michigan. The "perpetrator," identified only as "Mitchell" by news sources, claims that his video production teacher openly berated him in front of his classmates for referencing Foxnews.com as he worked on a project for class, and informed him in no uncertain terms that only BBC and "other news venues" were appropriate news sources.  

To be fair, school and school board officials seem to be responding quickly and favorably to this incident, which is clearly the latest example of students being singled out for their beliefs by agenda-driven administrators and teachers. But let's not kid ourselves etiher; this incident does not even happen if young Mitchell is seen perusing nytimes.com or the Clinton News Network (CNN) or any other website with an unobjective and biased agenda that panders to the left in American society. Such sources presumably would have been a-ok with the teacher, but Foxnews.com was a progressive no-no. 

I would be remiss in omitting the fact that this young person had the guts to speak out. According to the link, young Mitchell (or whoever he is) called Rush Limbaugh's radio show and relayed the account of what happened. I hope this is an example to any young person that may read this that, regardless of how much liberals and "hate-speech opponents" as they call themselves (more on this later) try to stifle your voice, SPEAK OUT!!! Do not let them rob you of your First Amendment rights as an American citizen. 

Additionally, however, and unfortunately I think the major point of this story is that it truly is getting dangerous out there for freedom of speech. When a high school kid is scolded harshly by his teacher for looking at a particular news website for a class project, it's a sign of the times. And the times are looking pretty scary. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518636,00.html

Score One for the "Hate-Speech" Haters

"The oppressed have become the oppressors." It is a common theme throughout history. 

We've come a long way since the 1960s, when society at large first began to really take notice of labels and degrading names and terms given to gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals. And for this, we should be thankful. But nowadays, instead of celebrating the fact that much progress has been made, the homosexual community still claims a grieved status and, as a result, prefers to continue to demand that we not only accept but affirm their lifestyles. Such appears to be the case with the new hate crimes legislation which will soon come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and which ostensibly provides "protection" to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals. 

In many ways, this is nothing new. Activist groups lobbying for the homosexual community have been pushing for legislation of this nature for decades. However, with the political landscape shifting under our feet day after day, conservatives would do well to take note especially now. By their own admission, the gay-rights groups believe that Washington is squarely in their corner and that they now have a legitimate shot. Make no mistake, they are poised to seize their moment. If this legislation passes, it could have far-reaching ramifications not only for individual First Amendment rights, but also for those of churches and other religious organizations vociferously opposed to the homosexual agenda.  

Simply put, if the hate-crimes bill passes, anybody who utters a word against homosexuality, be it a pastor in a local church, a student in class, or a neighbor talking to another neighbor, this person or group could find themselves in the crosshairs of any district attorney with a sharp enough legal mind (not to mention strong enough political ambition) to bring them before a judge. And so therefore, this legislation poses perhaps as severe a threat as I've seen in a while to the First Amendment rights of private citizens. 

Consider the interpretation of the proposed amendment by George Washington University law professor Frederick Lawrence and his feeble attempt to assuage fears about the threat it poses to free speech. In the story from the link below he says, "The only language that would be criminalized is language that would be meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement." 

Let's parse this statement for just a moment. "Conspiracy" is one criterion punishable by the newly proposed law, according to Lawrence. My question, however, is this: are evangelical Christians not already considered part of a vast, right-wing CONSPIRACY in many liberal circles? Could not then a hot-shot lawyer together with an activist judge interpret as conspiratorial the words of a pastor who, in the safety of his pulpit on Sunday morning, makes "hateful" comments about homosexuals? 

How about "solicitation" and "direct incitement"? In some ways, this language could be even more broadly misapplied. If a pastor gives an invitation for unbelievers to come forward after morning worship to make decisions for and commitments to Christ AFTER HE'S MADE "HATEFUL" COMMENTS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS, could this not be interpreted as soliciting for direct incitement and the pastor deemed to be in violation of the law? 

In the end, the only outcome of this legislation is that it flings wide open the door to all manner of judicial tyranny and persecution of those who would dare utter a word against the homosexual lifestyle in general and the radical, homosexual agenda in particular. And as such, it must be opposed at every turn. 

My encouragement to those reading is that you keep a watchful eye in the news for updates on this bill and, as much as it depends on you, oppose it. Write your congressmen and senators, and generate as much awareness as you can. 

Our freedoms and our futures depend on it. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/social-conservatives-blast-hate-crime-saying-limit-free-speech/

Obama vs. Planned Parenthood?

The old adage, "politicians will do anything to get elected," has more than a ring of truth to it. While most of us view such a phenomenon as disingenuous and, in some cases downright dishonest, the truth is that sometimes we're pleasantly surprised to hear that our elected leaders are reversing course (albeit to a small degree sometimes) on a particular issue. Of course, much of this depends on which side of the political and ideological fence you're on. 

Which brings us to President Barack Obama and his recent eyebrow-raising statements during his third primetime news conference regarding abortion. Asked about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a piece of legislation that would effectively roll back much of the legal protection for the unborn enacted during the Bush administration, Obama responded with about as centrist a response as one could hope for. 

"The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority," Obama said. "The most important thing we can do is to tamp down some of the anger surrounding the issue to focus on those areas we can agree on."

He then went on to detail some of the agenda items that are HIGHER on the priority list than abortion; namely, reducing the number of teenage pregnancies and other measures not centered around killing an unborn fetus. 

I'm not naive. I know that this is nothing to get excited about. I know that President Obama is not suddenly having an attack of conscience and doing an about-face on the issue of abortion. I know he's not going to be delivering the commencement address at my seminary this May 15th when I graduate...let alone the commencement address at Notre Dame. 

But I do have to say that it is encouraging to hear a president, especially one with as liberal a voting record as Obama's, discuss the necessity of thinking beyond abortion and stemming the number of unwanted pregnancies (and subsequent abortions) to begin with. 

Again, this is nothing to throw a party over. But Americans should be encouraged that Obama is ostensibly willing to find some common ground with those who disagree with him. He is demonstrating that he is not afraid to look at new ideas that might actually go a long way toward reducing the number of abortions. Sure, time will tell if his potential plan to curtail the number of unwanted pregnancies involves measures that most conservatives would oppose (i.e. - giving out contraceptives in public schools, etc.), but I think finding common ground that could solve the problem is a viable option. 

What is striking about the article found at the link below is the response by Planned Parenthood. Consider the comments from Cecile Richards, president of the organization, when asked about President Obama's remarks. 

"While on the campaign trail, President Obama promised women and their families that he would not only tackle health care reform, but also end the politicization of women's health."

"It's been a tremendous 100 days for those of us committed to strengthening women's health care and ensuring that young people have the information and care they need to become healthy and productive adults."

"Thanks to President Obama's leadership, health care decisions are now being driven by sound science and not political ideology," she added.

Not a negative word about the president's "backburner policy" where FOCA is concerned. Could it be then that pro-lifers and Planned Parenthood are headed toward...dare I say it...common ground of some kind???

Again, I wouldn't get too excited about it. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/obama-breaks-campaign-promise-immediately-sign-abortion/

A Final Word

Thoughts and prayers go out to all those in the U.S., Mexico and all over the world that have been affected by the Swine Flu. I hope you will join me in praying for these unfortunate ones and their families. And I hope you will take caution in the coming days as well, keeping your eye on events as they unfold and taking whatever measures necessary to protect yourself. 

Have a blessed week! 

Blaming America First, Hollywood's True Colors and More.

"Culpe America Primero"

"Blame America First." Ostensibly, that seems to be the battle cry of many a professor across the campuses of America's colleges and universities; that is, if this week's news reports surrounding Hugo Chavez and his gift book to President Obama are any indication. His "gesture of goodwill" to our commander-in-chief, in the form of Eduardo Galeano's "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," as it turns out, is popular reading in many classrooms of American academia today.

Which inevitably raises the question: So what? Why is Chavez's gift to President Obama and the fact that it's a popular item on collegiate syllabi such a cause for concern and focused media attention?

Well, because first of all, anytime a character like Hugo Chavez presents any book, pamphlet or material intended for leisure reading to our president, sensible Americans ought to take note. Chavez's record on democracy in general and human rights in particular (see link below) should be enough to raise eyebrows when we see him romancing our duly elected leaders on any level of government.

And second of all, because the book itself is summarily a one-sided attack on capitalism in general and the United States in particular. Simply put, this is not a balanced examination of the effects of American trade and economic export on our neighbors to the south. Instead, Mr. Galeano, the author, has taken it upon himself to cast America as an evil international despot with an insatiable appetite for power and industry. (Hmmm...sounds like someone I've heard of recently. Last name starts with a "C" and ends with a "havez" maybe?).

In all fairness, as the link to the news story below points out, many professors who use this book do so in a balanced fashion, which is to say they mandate that their pupils read the book but also require that the students read pro-American literature as well.

However, the danger for indoctrinating college students into anti-Americanism is still there and because it is, I have a message for my collegiate readers out there (if there are any). If you are a college student and one of your professors requires you to read books or manuscripts of this nature as a course requirement...do so. But think critically about it and make sure you're giving yourself a steady diet of pro-American literature as well.

This country is not evil. It is not imperialistic. And we do not "rape" the rest of the world with our economic and foreign policies. There are countless data reports available to you that make clear the fact that the United States of America is the leading provider of foreign aid and assistance to blighted and impoverished countries all over the world. When there is a crisis to mitigate or a war to be fought, the United States of America has historically led the charge, particularly in recent decades. Hence, you simply mustn't allow the liberally biased elements in academia and the news to dim your view of the very country that has afforded you the opportunity to go to college and make a better life for yourself.

Let Hugo Chavez wine and dine President Obama. My hope is that our good president will have the common sense and discernment that I believe many of our young people (and indeed most Americans) possess and will see through that maniac's efforts to undermine the pillars that have made our society great. In the meantime, my admonition to any patriotic American reading this is simply:

"Dios bendice America"..."God bless America."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517784,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/21/chavez-transgressions-history-shocking-speeches/

Hollywood's True Colors: Red, White and Intolerant

Well as it turns out, in good ol' Tinseltown, USA, when a tanned and beautiful local says cheerfully "anything goes" in regard to the morally relativistic, politically correct, and...well...anything goes culture, they don't quite mean ANYTHING. I mean, come on. If we're talking about legitimizing pornography on the big screen that's one thing.

But let a beauty queen who aspires to be Miss America have the audacity to state her personal belief (when asked, no less, about what her personal belief is) that marriage is meant to be solely between one man and one woman, and it's enough to make an entire industry of ditzy celebrities choke on their lattes and tofu.

Such appears to be the case since Carrie Prejean, the reigning Miss California, was asked by Miss American pageant judge Perez Hilton (no stranger to the bombastic remark and certainly no friend of traditional marriage. www.perezhilton.com) to weigh in on the gay marriage rights issue. Her response, about as diplomatically-worded and respectful as you'll find these days, was met not only with Mr. Hilton slamming her on his personal blog and calling her a horrid name, but with Hollywood in general responding about as intolerantly and mean-spiritedly as you could imagine. You can read a few of the comments on the link below.

I'll be honest: as a conservative evangelical Baptist, my stance on this issue is diametrically opposed to that of most people in Hollywood as well as liberals across the country. I often make no secret of the fact that I believe Genesis 2 to be straightforward in its regulation of what a marriage relationship should be. And so of course I would stand firmly with Ms. Prejean on this issue.

However, I think the main issue here is not the disparity between the two positions, but rather the spirit in which the disagreement is taking place, particularly on the liberal side. Simply put, it is vitriolic and hateful and every one of these people who has taken a cheap shot at Ms. Prejean does not deserve to call themselves an American based on the venom of their words. Where is the tolerance? Where is the resolution to agree to disagree? It is nowhere to be found in Hollywood.

Which brings me to the second point. Hollywood culture, as a whole, has lost all credibility at this point as far as I'm concerned. Where once there was a culture of tolerance, now there is a culture of closed-mindedness and hypocrisy. And those two traits are about as un-American as you can possibly get.

I'll support Ms. Prejean in any way I can, and I hope you'll join me. I don't know of any websites or causes that are dedicated to voicing support for Miss California, but if anyone should happen to come across any, please let me know. I'll keep my eyes peeled as well.

Traditionally, the Miss America contest was a contest that held as criteria for winning physical beauty, intelligence, and character. Kudos then to Carrie Prejean for embodying all three, regardless of whether or not she wins and regardless of what Hitlerwood may say about her.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517449,00.html

A Final Kudos

Rarely in a culture that promotes "looking out for #1" over the greater good do we see anything as touching or, one could say, flat-out radical as the story below. To summarize, Stan Musil, a California man, has agreed to symbolically adopt his wife's two aborted babies in order to, as he puts it, "help her heal from the pain of having the abortions." For the sake of time, I will not go into detail and you can read the rest of the story below.

Abortion is another hot-button issue that is about as divisive a one that you'll find. And again, my conservative evangelical conviction overwhelmingly defines my take on the whole subject. But this is amazing on many levels; not only is this man affirming the value of human life by adopting the children posthumously, he is also demonstrating a willingness to counter the culture of death that Americans now find themselves living in.

I hope it can be said of all of us that we are as life-affirming and counter-cultural as Mr. Musil. Not just for the sake of "bucking the trend," but because it's the right thing to do. Jesus said in the book of John, "I have come that they may have life and have it to the full." -John 10:10. That includes life for the unborn as well.

God bless you, Stan Musil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517503,00.html

And a blessed week to all!

-JG