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!