If the prevaricating Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Susan Rice have demonstrated anything, it’s that the ruling elite have no qualms about using shockingly obvious lies in pursuit of fundamentally transforming America.

U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with ObamaCare that a few more lies won’t fix.

So what if President Obama’s claim that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” was widely cited as the “lie of the year?” Lying by the nation’s ruling elites has gone viral. How else to explain federal judges all over the land insisting with straight faces that marriage has only existed in the law for the sole reason of denying same-sex couples? The dishonesty and ruthless power plays are stunning.

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader from Nevada lauded ObamaCare, and declared that, “Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”

That must be comforting to millions who have been given a pink slip, higher premiums, or lost their coverage — especially people with serious illnesses.

Mr. Reid cited ads sponsored by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) about women cancer patients losing coverage, and said that they were “made up from whole cloth,” a charge that AFP heatedly denies. He lambasted libertarian philanthropists David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, accusing the “billionaire brothers” of “trying to buy America.” Channeling his inner Hugo Chavez, Mr. Reid variously described the Kochs as “oil magnates” and “multibillionaire brothers.” B-b-b-billionaires.

Mr. Reid must really hate rich people. That is, unless they give heavily to left-wing causes, like Quark founder Tim Gill, Hollywood impresario David Geffen, Las Vegas big shots, “green” crony capitalists or George Soros. An America-hating currency manipulator, Mr. Soros bankrolls the Open Society Foundation, whose giving to liberal groups “hit $11 million in 2013, more than triple the $3.25 million it spent the previous year,” according to The Washington Post.

Mr. Reid also launched the whopper about Mitt Romney cheating the Internal Revenue Service.

“During the 2012 presidential election, the media never made Reid pay a political price for spreading the false rumor that for years Romney paid no taxes,” John Nolte wrote at Breitbart.com.

Mr. Reid also had no problem with the “Joe Soptic ad” in 2012, an emotion-packed narrative from a man who blamed his wife’s cancer death on Mr. Romney even though Mr. Romney’s former firm had closed the plant where Mr. Soptic had worked five years before and Mr. Soptic’s wife had her own health coverage.

After the ad was exposed as a fraud, it stayed on TV. So what if it’s a bald-faced lie? You can’t make a revolution without breaking a few eggs. If you’re caught, keep lying. Even the liberal-leaning Politifact.com website had this to say about the Soptic ploy:

“Bill Burton, a former Obama aide who is the head of Priorities USA Action, appeared on CNN to defend the ad on Aug. 8, 2012, and denied that the ad suggests that Romney is responsible for the early death of Mrs. Soptic. ‘We would never make that case,’ Burton said.”

Politifact: “But we find that preposterous. The force of the ad’s narrative is inescapable. The story begins with the plant closing and ends with a woman’s death.”

The ad helped shape the narrative that Mr. Romney was an unfeeling plutocrat, unlike Barack “you didn’t build that, and if you did, we’re giving your earnings to my supporters” Obama.

Last Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden mischaracterized new voter photo ID laws in Alabama, North Carolina and Texas as products of “hatred.”

“Hatred never, never goes away,” Mr. Biden said. He and Harry Reid should know. “The zealotry of those who wish to limit the franchise cannot be smothered by reason,” Mr. Biden thundered.

Ah, reason.

I’d like to report that Mr. Biden indulged in rational consistency by characterizing as “haters” all Department of Motor Vehicles personnel, airline agents, liquor store clerks, welfare bureaucrats, bank tellers and the U.S. Department of Justice guards who ask people for a photo ID. But he didn’t.

Finally, there’s Susan E. Rice. The current national security adviser ought to get a job at Burger King. She’s flipping whoppers again. On Sept. 16, 2012, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, she went on network talk shows to insist that the terrorist attack five days earlier on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, was a “spontaneous reaction” to an anti-Muslim video.

For two weeks, administration officials repeated the lie. It’s now clear that the White House knew in real time that the attack was not a riot over a video. Yet, here was Ms. Rice again, on Feb. 23, telling NBC that “the notion that I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false, and I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”

Something’s been amply demonstrated. It’s the ruling elites’ use of shockingly obvious lies in pursuit of fundamentally transforming America.

Jesus was not particularly subtle about dishonesty, telling the ruling elites of His time: “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him … for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

This article was originally published at the OneNewsNow.com. 

Recently, “progressive” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the dangerous expansion of Executive Branch power under the Obama Administration. This would be an excellent resource for high school students to study, both those in public schools and home schools.

Here is an excerpt from his prepared remarks:

I recently testified before this Committee on the history and function of the separation of powers in our system.1 I also discussed how, in my view, President Obama has repeatedly violated this doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. I will not repeat that discussion here because this hearing is not about the existence of such violations but the possible corrective measures that can be taken in light of those violations.

Given the issues at stake in this debate, it is vital that we speak plainly about the current conflicts between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. There has been a massive gravitational shift of authority to the Executive Branch that threatens the stability and functionality of our tripartite system. To be sure, this shift did not begin with President Obama. However, it has accelerated at an alarming rate under this Administration. These changes are occurring in a political environment with seemingly little oxygen for dialogue, let alone compromise. Indeed, the current anaerobic conditions are breaking down the muscle of the constitutional system that protects us all. Of even greater concern is the fact that the other two branches appear passive, if not inert, as the Executive Branch has assumed such power.

As someone who voted for President Obama and agrees with many of his policies, it is often hard to separate the ends from the means of presidential action. Indeed, despite decades of thinking and writing about the separation of powers, I have had momentary lapses where I privately rejoiced in seeing actions on goals that I share, even though they were done in the circumvention of Congress. For example, when President Obama unilaterally acted on greenhouse gas pollutants, I was initially relieved. I agree entirely with the priority that he has given this issue. However, it takes an act of willful blindness to ignore that the greenhouse regulations were implemented only after Congress rejected such measures and that a new sweeping regulatory scheme is now being promulgated solely upon the authority of the President. We are often so committed to a course of action that we conveniently dismiss the means as a minor issue in light of the goals of the Administration. Many have embraced the notion that all is fair in love and politics. However, as I have said too many times before Congress, in our system it is often more important how we do something than what we do. Priorities and policies (and presidents) change. What cannot change is the system upon which we all depend for our rights and representation.

Convenience has long been the enemy of principle in politics. It is not enough to refer to the value of a program to justify its extraconstitutional means. Such constitutional relativism cuts the entire system free of its moorings; leaving the system adrift in a sea of politics where the ability to act is treated as synonymous with the authority to act. There is no license in our system to act, as President Obama has promised, “with or without Congress”3 in these areas. During periods of political division, compromise is clearly often hard to come by. That reflects a divided country as a whole. Such opposition cannot be the justification for circumvention of the legislative branch….

The current crisis is the result not simply of executive overreach but also of judicial avoidance in the face of that growing encroachment. The courts are now absent—without constitutional leave—in the midst of one of the most fundamental conflicts in the history of our country. That will make corrective measures all the more important (and all the more difficult) for Congress.

…

The classic check on executive over-reaching is the power of the purse. While the President may control the machinery of the state, it is Congress that supplies the gas needed to run those machines. However, the idea of the purse strings as a meaningful check on executive power is often presented in highly generalized and unrealistic terms. Congress is unlikely to cause a cascading failure by cutting off all of the funding for an agency or even a subagency office. More importantly, the Executive Branch routinely moves billions of dollars around in discretionary or undesignated funding. Cutting off the funding of a given part of the government does not have immediate impacts and may in fact not prevent funding as intended.

The Obama Administration has shown how the power of the purse has diminished under modern fiscal systems.

…

To be clear, I do not view President Obama as a dictator, but I do view him as a danger in his aggregation of executive power. It is not his motives but his means that I question. It is the danger described by Louis Brandeis in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States,37 where he warned that the “greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”

…

We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this President leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority.

 Click HERE to support the work and ministry
of Illinois Family Institute.

From his imperial throne, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has proclaimed that heretofore state attorneys general need not enforce state laws that define marriage as a sexually complementary union. According to the New York Times, Holder said that “officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.”

State attorneys general are the chief law enforcement officials in each state. Their job is to enforce and defend duly enacted laws. They are not part of the judiciary which is charged with deciding the constitutionality of laws that are legally challenged.  

King Holder, or should I say Prince Holder, acting most certainly at the behest of or in cahoots with King Obama, has decided that state attorneys general are charged with the additional duty to ascertain whether unchallenged duly enacted laws comport with the Constitution.

Prince Holder also expressed his belief that decisions on when to defend laws “should never be political or based on policy objections.” Riiiiight…

Obama has evidently sped up the evolutionary process to dizzyingly unnatural speeds. But a short time ago, he wholeheartedly opposed the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages and in the twinkling of an eye he evolved first into a fervent same-sex faux-marriage supporter and then into a president untethered to those pesky constitutional principles that separate powers. 

Well, folks, you may as well pack up yet another civil right. There’s no point in bothering to vote on legislation anymore. I don’t know about you, but my steamer trunk is already jam-packed with my speech rights and religious rights. I’ll toss in a few mothballs to keep everything fresh in the event that someday I can use them again.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to demand that Mr. Holder be held accountable for his exploitation of power in the service of this administration’s politics.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

President Barack Obama’s administration has announced that it won’t enforce money-laundering laws against banks doing business with marijuana stores, in a move designed to “facilitate illegal conduct,” says U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

The Obama administration calls it “Guidance to Financial Institutions on Marijuana Businesses.”

The Washington Post story about this development carried the innocuous headline, “Obama administration clears banks to accept funds from legal marijuana dealers,” when in fact the marijuana “business” is not “legal” under federal or international law.

“Marijuana trafficking is illegal under federal law, and it’s illegal for banks to deal with marijuana sale proceeds under federal law,” noted Grassley. “Only Congress can change these laws. The administration can’t change the law with a memo.”

He added, “This is just one more area in which the Obama Administration is undermining our system of checks and balances and the rule of law.”

Robert Charles, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, told Accuracy in Media that, despite the “guidance” from the Obama administration, banks will stay away from laundering marijuana money because of the fear of being sued. “The range of suits is enormous,” he said. “The guidelines do absolutely nothing. They protect no bank against anything. The DOJ won’t give any bank an assurance that it won’t be prosecuted under federal bank secrecy or anti-drug laws.”

Calvina L. Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, told us, “This is yet one more example of the lawlessness of the Obama administration.  We all know that banks are federally regulated and that pot is still illegal at the federal level. This action will clearly put banks in jeopardy of violating regulations and will enable criminal activity to thrive.”

She added, “This action tells parents and grandparents that the government can no longer be counted on to do what it is intended to do: protect U.S. citizens from criminals who engage in drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, and other serious illegal activities that are inter-connected to the drug underworld. Rather, our government is now embracing this activity and enabling it.”

While most of the major media have been in support of what the Obama administration is doing to facilitate the spread of mind-altering drugs, some publications are sounding the alarm.

Whistleblower, a publication of WND.com, has published a special issue on the epidemic of drug use, legal and illegal, in American society. A piece by Art Moore titled, “Dude: Science contradicts Obama’s pot claims” refers to Obama as the “Choom Gang” president, a reference to his membership in a high school gang of heavy marijuana users, and notes that Obama’s claims about the relative harmlessness of pot are not sustained by the scientific evidence. Another article by Moore identifies Obama supporter George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire, as the main force behind marijuana legalization.

Investigative reporter Michael P. Tremoglie says in an article on a site called Main St. that George Soros is only one of several big name CEOs and rich elites who are financing the marijuana movement. He also names:

• Google billionaire Paul Buchheit
• Facebook billionaire founders Sean Parker and Dustin Moskovitz
• PayPal founder Peter Thiel
• Peter Thiel, founder of Men’s Wearhouse
• John Sperling, chairman and CEO of the University of Phoenix
• Whole Foods founder John Mackey

A website called “Marijuana Majority” names dozens of other personalities backing the legalization of dope.

It appears, however, that some Republicans are moving in the direction of Obama’s soft-on-drugs policy.

Five days after the Maryland mall shootings, The Washington Times ran a front page story, “In the weeds: Paul, Christie, Perry open to softer pot laws ahead of 2016,” about possible Republican presidential candidates embracing the drug. It turned out that the Maryland mall shooter, who killed two people and then himself, was himself a pothead, and was possibly having a psychotic episode.

The Times said that U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) “has arguably been the most vocal on the subject, saying the federal government should leave the issue entirely to the states.” The Times also reported that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) has vowed to scrap the “failed war on drugs.”

But David Evans, the Executive Director of the Drug Free Projects Coalition and a special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation, notes that during the George W. Bush administration marijuana use went down among young people by 25 percent. “If we had had a reduction in any other health problem in the U.S. of 25 percent, we would consider it an outstanding success,” he said. But marijuana use has been going up under the Obama administration.

Michele M. Leonhart, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), declared in a statement issued last December that “Those who aspire to see their own or others’ children accomplish great things in life or who want to live in a nation of increasing prosperity should be very concerned about the increase in marijuana use by teenagers, including the fact that a staggering 12 percent of 13- and 14-year-olds are abusing the drug. The mixed messages being sent to America’s teens about the harmfulness and legality of using record-high-potency marijuana are obscuring kids’ awareness of the effects their use will have on them. America owes it to its children to give them the best possible start in life, so they and society are not hindered in the future.”

Her statement takes on even more significance now that Obama has disregarded the scientific evidence, declared the drug to be relatively harmless, and is encouraging banks to launder money from the marijuana traffickers.

Pro-marijuana groups are demanding that Obama fire Leonhart. But she continues to enforce the federal laws against marijuana as best she can. The DEA announced on January 27, 2014 that the owners of a “medical marijuana” dispensary in Bakersfield, California, had been charged with trafficking in both methamphetamine and marijuana.

This article was originally published at the Accuracy in Media website.

The Obama administration has answered the question of what happens when you give liberals the Oval Office – and it’s not pretty or even a bit funny.

You know that clever ad by a satellite dish company that shows what happens to a man who gets bored waiting for the cable guy?

As with the children’s books that began with If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, the man endures a series of mishaps, the final one showing his elderly dad getting punched over a can of soup during a riot. The tagline is, “Don’t let your dad get punched over a can of soup ….”

It’s a perfect analogy to the spiraling tyranny of centralized mismanagement epitomized by ObamaCare and other rogue federal programs under President Obama. Here’s how it goes:

If you fail to bother to pay attention or even vote, you get a liberal in the White House and a bunch of them in Congress. When you get liberals in power, you get bad laws. When you have bad laws, you need penalties to ensure compliance. When you have more penalties, you need more enforcers. When you have more enforcers, you lose your freedom to run your business. When you can’t run your business, you lay off people.

When you lay off people, they go on welfare and food stamps. When they go on welfare and food stamps, they vote for lawmakers who will give them more free stuff. To pay for more free stuff, the government raises taxes and borrows money from China to service the national debt. When China crooks its finger, Uncle Sam crawls to Beijing, asking for mercy. Don’t make Uncle Sam crawl to Beijing asking for mercy ….

This fictitious ad was inspired by the news that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has warned medium-sized companies that they must certify – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in laying off employees. The IRS now wants to get inside the heads of managers and determine their motives. File this one under Thought Crime.

At Monticello, Mr. Obama made a memorable and revealing remark while accessing a terrace where the rabble tourists cannot tread: “That’s the good thing as a president. I can do whatever I want.”

It’s no joke. He certainly can and will abuse power as long as he faces no serious challenge to his daily constitutional violations. Congress won’t stop him, and his Justice Department under Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. regards laws and court rulings as mere suggestions to be ignored.

On the same day that Mr. Obama joked about his own growing authoritarianism with Socialist French President Francoise Hollande, he illegally suspended more of ObamaCare’s employer mandate.

To manage all the chaos erupting under ObamaCare, the IRS is adding thousands of enforcers. That’s actually the most easily predicted effect of socialism; the worse it gets, the more the state resorts to coercion.

Socialism depends on inordinate force because it is directly counter to human nature. People naturally protect their own family interests, and then their religious communities and neighbors, secular communities and on up to the nation state. Socialism is in a constant war with all its competitors — the intermediary institutions between the individual and the state. Hence, socialism advances an endless series of taxes and policies that weaken resistance and create more dependency on government, usually under the rubric of solving “inequality.” The final stage of socialism ends with barbed wire and armed guards – to keep people in, not out.

The first casualty of socialism is freedom of the press. Perhaps that’s why the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is planning a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN),” whereby researchers grill reporters and editors about what they cover and why. If they don’t like what they hear, the researchers text the newsroom coordinates to Homeland Security’s drone division. Just kidding about that last part – for now.

In a chilling Wall Street Journal column on February 11, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai painted an Orwellian picture of an FCC run amok. Participation in CIN is “voluntary – in theory,” Mr. Pai writes, noting that broadcasters are dependent on the FCC for licensing and would think twice before telling the FCC where to stick its survey. Mr. Pai also asks, “Why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?”

Why indeed, except that the FCC under Mr. Obama already has proposed Net Neutrality rules for the Internet despite Congress’s never having given the FCC authority over the Internet and after a federal court specifically rejected it.

From seizing the healthcare system, to using the IRS to cripple the tea parties, to using the Justice Department to attack voter ID laws and immigration enforcement, and now preparing to send FCC “researchers” into newsrooms, the Obama administration has answered the question of what happens when you give liberals the Oval Office.

And it’s not pretty or even a bit funny. It raises the question that David asked in Psalm 11: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

The short answer is to get off the sidelines and into the resistance.

– See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/robert-knight/2014/02/18/if-you-give-a-liberal-the-oval-office-#sthash.IiCcBTnB.dpuf

Judges are ignoring the fact that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide for homosexual “marriage” – regardless of recent rulings. 

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.

Only 7 Illinois Reps Vote to Ban Federal Abortion Funding

Republican members of Illinois’ Congressional delegation have voted to slap a total ban on federal taxpayer funding of elective abortions.

Seven of Illinois’ eighteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.  This pro-life legislation was introduced by U.S. Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and was passed on January 28 by a vote of 227 to 188.  The bill number is H.R. 7

HR 7 seeks to accomplish three important goals: 

1.  Make the Hyde Amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions  permanent;

2.  Ensure that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde Amendment as promised by the President;

3.  Provide full disclosure, transparency and the prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion.

Republicans Peter Roskam (Wheaton), Rodney Davis (Champaign), Randy Hultgren (Geneva), John Shimkus (Harrisburg), Adam Kinzinger (Joliet) and Aaron Schock (Peoria) voted for the bill.  The only Democrat from Illinois to support this bill was U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski from Chicago.

Democrats Robin Kelly (Chicago), Luis Gutierrez (Chicago), Mike Quigley (Chicago), Danny Davis (Chicago), Tammy Duckworth (Schaumburg), Jan Schakowsky (Chicago), Bradley Schneider (Lincolnshire), Bill Foster (Joliet), William Enyart (Belleville) and Cheri Bustos (Moline) voted to support the use of federal taxpayer dollars for abortion.  U.S. Representative Bobby Rush (Chicago), who has supported abortion funding in the past, did not vote.

Before the vote on this bill, the Congressman Smith took to the floor to make some important points, including the following:

Obamacare requires premium payers to be assessed a separate abortion surcharge every month to pay for abortions. We have learned that consumers may never know they are paying the surcharge, despite assurances to the contrary when the ACA was passed.

In 2009, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) said:

“…if you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds–perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account–for that abortion coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion.” 

However, research published by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) indicates that insurance carriers are not actually billing the surcharge separately at all. In fact, Gretchen Borchelt, director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women’s Law Center, told the Huffington Post that “we used to talk about it as being two checks that the consumer would have to write because of the segregation requirements, but that’s not the way it’s being implemented.”

Finally, Mr. Speaker, because abortion brutally dismembers, decapitates or chemically poisons an unborn child to death, Americans have consistently demanded that public funds not pay for abortion.

A huge majority—well over 60%–according to most polls show that women and men in this country don’t want to be complicit in abortion by subsidizing it.  A December 2009 Quinnipiac poll found 72% opposed to “allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health reform bill.”

Another poll by International Communications Research asked “If the choice were up to you, would you want your own insurance policy to include abortion?”  69% of women said no!

Mr. Speaker, that’s because an ever growing number of people recognize that abortion isn’t health care—it kills babies and harms women.

We live in an age of ultrasound imaging—the ultimate window to the womb and the child who resides there.  We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign interventions designed to diagnose, treat and cure the precious lives of these youngest patients. 

HR 7 will help save lives and will reduce abortions.

The Judiciary Committee Report accompanying HR 7 suggests that the Hyde Amendment has saved over a million children because 1 in 4 women who would have procured an abortion don’t go through with it if public funding isn’t available. 

HR 7 will reduce abortions.  HR 7 will help save lives.

President Barack Obama has already pledged to veto the abortion funding ban should it reach his desk.  It is unlikely to do so, since U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is unlikely to allow the bill to be taken up for debate in that chamber.  

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Have you ever read a voter guide or perused a legislative scorecard? Maybe you are one of the many Americans that have helped with a voter registration drive because you believe every citizen should be involved in electing their lawmakers.

The question is does everyone have the right to perform these tasks?

Putting together a voter guide or organizing a voter registration drive seems fairly mundane. Few people or organizations bother with it because it’s a straightforward activity that leaves no room for subjective opinion. A voter guide shows how specific candidates rank based on their views of certain issues. For example, a pro-life organization might put together a voter guide that shows how candidates voted on bills relating to life issues. If candidates vote in favor of defending life as sacred, the pro-life organization will rank them higher and urge support for such candidates. If a candidate votes in favor of measures that support abortion they will receive a less favorable ranking.

Legislative scorecards work the same way and are generally done by no-profit groups seeking to inform voters on how their state lawmakers voted during the legislative session. (Click here to view a legislative scorecard from a group here in Illinois.)

Again, who should be allowed to compile and distribute information like voter guides and legislative scorecards?

The logical, common sense answer is that everyone should be allowed to distribute such information. As long as the information is verifiable and true, there should be no regulation stipulating who can and cannot distribute a voter guide or legislative scorecard. Furthermore, everyone should be allowed to state who they support as a candidate and urge others to educate themselves before voting.

And yet, the IRS is now proposing new rules that would limit such activities for non-profit organizations.

The American Family Association commented on these proposed rules:

“The IRS is proposing regulations that will give them the authority to restrict voter guides, legislative scorecards, get-out-the-vote campaigns and even the voter registration activities of non-profit groups by defining such civic engagement as “candidate-related political activity…American Family Association General Counsel Patrick Vaughn says, ‘The proposed regulations are consistent with the IRS’ scandalous suppression of Tea Party applications for tax exemption. The IRS seems to have decided that it may have to process Tea Party applications, but it can render the organizations impotent.’”

To be frank, this is a blatant attempt to silence critics of the liberal, big-government social agenda that is being forced on Americans. Those who dare speak up for traditional values are being attacked and this is just the latest of a series of incidents. The IRS knows that voter guides and legislative scorecards are a threat to the liberal establishment who wish to keep legislative activities within the politically elite circles.   Conservative groups who provide these voter guides are seeking transparency and seek to hold lawmakers accountable. This is unacceptable to the IRS, they are afraid of an informed electorate, for they may cease to blindly follow the establishment’s agenda.

Under these proposed IRS regulations , groups such as the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and even the Illinois Family Institute would be prohibited from letting people know how their lawmakers voted. These same groups would also be prohibited from evaluating candidates based on their positions on issues such as life, marriage, and religious freedom.

If these restrictions are put into place, how would the citizens keep the government accountable?

If the IRS can by fiat silence those seeking to keep the government transparent and accountable, how long would it be before the government, through the IRS, attempts to do the same to churches? How long before the IRS decides that teaching about marriage is considered to be “political speech” and thus illegal for a church? It seems a stretch of the imagination to think of such events, but after all that we have seen over the last few years, is it really out of the question?

On Wednesday, U.S. Representative Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-LA), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee will hold a hearing with IRS Commissioner John Kroskin.  The hearing will focus on the ongoing investigation of IRS targeting, the newly proposed regulations concerning 501C3 and 501C4 groups, the backlog of applications for tax-exempt status, IRS responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and improper payments of tax credits.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to your U.S. Representative to ask them to stop the IRS from implementing new rules to severely restrict the free speech rights of non-profit organizations like IFI.

More ACTION:  The government has no business telling anyone that they cannot distribute information freely. This attempt by the IRS to silence conservative groups is yet another example of government overreach. We must take action and let the IRS know they are out of bounds and interfering with the right to free speech. We encourage you to read the sample letter below and consider copying and pasting it to the IRS Comment Site where it will be logged. Let your voice be heard.

SAMPLE LETTER: 

I urge the IRS to reject proposed regulations found in REG-134417-13. It would restrict good citizenship by redefining all voter registration, non-partisan voter guides, legislative records, candidate debates or forums, get-out-the-vote reminders, even the mention of any issue that has been raised by a candidate as regulated political activity.  

In addition, the proposed regulation will stifle the ability of non-profit groups to inform citizens about the Administration’s judicial and political appointments by redefining those nominees as political candidates.  This provision of the proposal has nothing to do with accountability for election spending. It will however reduce the Administration’s accountability to the public.  Citizens have the right to hear more than the Administration’s line regarding what philosophies, policies, agendas political appointees represent.   

Most concerning, REG-134417-13 gives the appearance that the IRS is trying to adopt regulations to achieve the same goals that motivated it to hold-up granting the applications of conservative organizations and launch intrusive investigations of Tea Party applicants. 

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

The IRS is proposing regulations that will give them the authority to restrict voter guides, legislative scorecards, get-out-the-vote campaigns and even the voter registration activities of non-profit groups by defining such civic engagement as “candidate-related political activity.”

Many, including AFA, believe these rules are an attempt to shut down conservative organizations like AFA, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and state groups like Illinois Family Institute.

American Family Association General Counsel Patrick Vaughn says, “The proposed regulations are consistent with the IRS’ scandalous suppression of Tea Party applications for tax exemption. The IRS seems to have decided that it may have to process Tea Party applications, but it can render the organizations impotent.” OneNewNow story here.

Read Mr. Vaughn’s summary of the regulations here.

If this policy is adopted, groups like your AFA would no longer be able to distribute voter guides, promote voter registration, report voting records of elected officials, or even mention the names of candidates who are running for election.

Eventually, these rules could filter down to churches, simply at the whim of the IRS, basically silencing conservatives and Christians for exercising their patriotic and civic freedoms.

The IRS is taking public comments about its proposal. Make sure your voice is heard!

Take ACTION:  Please take a moment to copy and paste the sample letter (or create your own) to the IRS comment form at this site: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=IRS-2013-0038-0001

AFA has prepared a sample letter for you to submit to the IRS, urging them to reject regulations that would suppress the freedom of speech during election periods.

SAMPLE LETTER:

I urge the IRS to reject proposed regulations found in REG-134417-13. It would restrict good citizenship by redefining all voter registration, non-partisan voter guides, legislative records, candidate debates or forums, get-out-the-vote reminders, even the mention of any issue that has been raised by a candidate as regulated political activity.

In addition, the proposed regulation will stifle the ability of non-profit groups to inform citizens about the Administration’s judicial and political appointment by redefining those nominees as political candidates.  This provision of the proposal has nothing to do with accountability for election spending. It will however reduce the Administration’s accountability to the public.  Citizens have the right to hear more than the Administration’s line regarding what philosophies, policies, agendas political appointees represent.  

Most concerning, REG-134417-13 gives the appearance that the IRS is trying to adopt regulations to achieve the same goals that motivated it to hold-up granting the applications of conservative organizations and launch intrusive investigations of Tea Party applicants.

I’m a Bible-believing Christian first, a conservative second and, sometimes, with rapidly dwindling frequency, a Republican third (but only when the Grand Old Party is behaving itself).

Although the GOP’s RINO establishment still controls its legislative reins, I’m mildly encouraged by some recent developments at the Republican National Committee (RNC) level. It seems that under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, the party is moving – at least to some degree – back toward its historical conservative platform moorings.

It’s a popular refrain among “moderate” Republicans and libertine libertarians that the GOP “must give up the fight on ‘social issues’” (i.e., gun rights, religious freedom, protecting life and defending legitimate marriage and the natural family).

If the GOP follows through and abandons these transcendent conservative values, it’s done once and for all. The Republican Party had better run, not walk, back toward these conservative platform principles; otherwise Democrats will rule in perpetuity. The “progressive” juggernaut will finish off an America it has already maimed beyond recognition.

As I’ve noted before, Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds what I call “complete conservatism.” The legs symbolize a strong national defense, strong free-market principles and strong traditional social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issue – such as abortion, homosexual activism or the Second Amendment – is not a complete conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Karl Rove represents the embodiment of this kind of mushy moderate false pragmatism – a Democrat-lite mindset embraced by the GOP’s socio-liberal establishment. If you run into Karl and his ilk, don’t forget to thank them for President Bob Dole, President John McCain and President Mitt Romney.

Indeed, if the Republican Party ever hopes to occupy the Oval Office again, it’s going to have to nominate a complete conservative and adopt a legislative agenda that reflects the values shared by the tens-of-millions who make up the GOP’s complete conservative base. I don’t mean by simply paying empty lip service either. I mean through unwavering legislative practice.

As Mitt Romney might tell you, if the base ain’t fired up, the base ain’t going to the polls.

In 2012, the GOP approved a platform that, at least in writing, re-established a firm position on – as they say – “guns, ‘gays’ and abortion.” It’s now time for the Republican Party to stand firm atop that platform. As a complete conservative who shudders at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton, I’m cautiously optimistic that some in leadership are beginning to scale the platform once more. The RNC, under Priebus, has recently taken steps that seem to indicate the message of the GOP’s majority base is finally getting through.

For example, the Washington Times recently reported: “In an unprecedented show of opposition to abortion, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is delaying the start of the party’s annual winter meeting so he and other committee members can join the (Jan. 22) March for Life on the Mall. …”

“‘I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the Rally for Life,’ Mr. Priebus said in an email to the Times. ‘This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles,’” he said.

Moreover, this past Thursday was National Religious Freedom Day. In recent years we’ve seen religious freedom under attack at unprecedented levels through things like the HHS abortion mandate, so-called “gay marriage” and “sexual orientation” laws that target religious business owners. The RNC released the following statement indicating that the GOP intends to defend religious freedom:

“Today we celebrate National Religious Freedom Day and honor the vision of our founders, who ensured every American would have the right to ‘the free exercise’ of his or her faith. As a party, Republicans are committed to preserving and defending the protections enshrined in the First Amendment so that future generations will always enjoy religious freedom in America.”

This move back toward the GOP’s conservative platform has made some socio-liberal Republicans unhappy. In fact, it recently drove homosexual RINO Jimmy LaSalvia, the founder of GOProud, a tiny “gay activist” outfit, to announce that he was defecting from the party.

LaSalvia told Time magazine that, “he could no longer take his own party’s refusal to stand up to bigotry: he was leaving the Republican Party and had registered as an Independent.”

By refusing to “stand up to bigotry,” of course, LaSalvia, like all “gay” activists, means that he can no longer abide the Republican platform’s support for religious freedom and pro-family values.

LaSalvia’s frustration and defection bode well for the Republican Party in general. It means that the GOP is moving slowly – ever so slowly – back toward its conservative roots. This is good news indeed. The more conservative this prodigal GOP becomes; the more successful it will be going forward.

Keep it up, Mr. Priebus, and in November your base just might grill up the fatted calf.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

A very important, albeit confusing, ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last summer.  In the United States v. Windsor case, the Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as it pertains to how federal employees are viewed and for the purposes of federal benefits. However, the Court was silent on the status of same-sex couples who may have obtained a civil marriage in one state, but who live in a state that recognizes only marriages of a man and a woman.  The Court did not however find a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” and did not redefine marriage for the nation.

The Court did defer to how states defined marriage and instructed the federal government to honor the individual state definitions. But while the Windsor decision struck down a key part of DOMA and instructed the federal government to defer to the states regarding their individual definitions, it provided no clear guidance on how the federal government ought to determine marital status for federal laws and benefits.

The result of this vagueness in the Windsor decision is conflicting standards for determining marital status among federal agencies. Some agencies have determined marital status based on the place of celebration. This means if a person is legally married in a state recognizing same-sex “marriage,” but lives in a state that does not, the federal government will honor that marriage. Other agencies have determined marital status by a person’s place of residence. 

By recognizing some marriages based on the place of celebration, rather than residence, the government is guilty of “creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” something explicitly condemned by the Court (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694). This action by the federal government is in direct violation of the ruling of Windsor.

Thankfully, U.S. Representative Randy Weber (R-Texas) has introduced H.R. 3829, the “State Marriage Defense Act of 2014.” This bill serves to clear up the confusion and ensure that each individual state has the ability to define marriage for itself without fear of government intervention. This bill is a necessary response to the current administration’s overreach in applying Windsor. Further, it reinforces the idea that the marriage of one man and one woman is the best environment for children to be reared and raised.

Our friends at the Family Research Council said of this bill:

 “This simple legislation provides clarity by requiring the federal government to look to a person’s state of residence (domicile) to determine marital status. Requiring the federal government to look to the state laws of the place where a person actually lives is most deferential to state authority and best comports with the dominant federalism themes of Windsor.

“This legislation provides confidence to the super majority of states that have chosen to define marriage according to the historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This legislation would ensure that the federal government won’t engage in efforts ‘to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married’ (Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693).”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to ask your U.S. Representative to support and/or co-sponsor H.R. 3829 — the State Marriage Defense Act.

There is a very real opportunity, once and for all, to secure the right for each state to define marriage without fear of the federal government overriding that definition with one of their own. But in order for that to happen people just like you must take action and let their members of Congress know they support the “State Marriage Defense Act of 2014.” Please, take a moment to contact your members of Congress and urge them to support this important piece of legislation.

Background

What does this bill do practically?

It tells the federal government that a person’s legal residence, or domicile, determines marital status for the purposes of implementing federal law. In other words, if state law recognizes a person as married, federal law will recognize them as married; if state law does not recognize a person as married, federal law will not recognize them as married.

What is wrong with letting the federal government determine marital status based on the law of the state where a same-sex marriage ceremony is held?

It disrespects the authority of states to regulate marital relations within their borders, it creates two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state, and it allows the federal government to unduly influence a sovereign state’s policy decisions on marriage. As the Supreme Court said in Windsor, states have the “historic and essential authority” to regulate marital relations within their borders, and the federal government should not be permitted to disrespect this authority by ignoring their marriage laws.

Doesn’t this bill violate the equal protection argument in the Windsor decision?

No. This bill complies with the reasoning in Windsor and is consistent with the guidance the Court did offer on how the federal government should defer to state laws on marriage. The Supreme Court declined to overturn state marriage laws in the 50 states as they were asked to do in the companion case to Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry (a case regarding California’s law on marriage, Proposition 8). Instead, the Court deferred to state definitions in determining marital status. This legislation provides clarity to the federal government on how the Windsor ruling should be implemented.

Does this bill contradict traditional definitions of federalism?

No. This bill preserves federalism by: 1) recognizing and respecting the historic authority of states, not the federal government, to define marriage; and 2) ensuring that the federal government will not interfere with a state’s definition of marriage by applying a different federal definition of marriage to residents of that state.

 Please, click HERE to to support IFI.

In 2010 millions of American tea-party constitutionalists, to include the GOP’s Christian base, united in a remarkable grass-roots effort to rein in our unbridled federal government and return it to its expressly limited constitutional confines. As a result, an unprecedented number of counter-constitutionalist lawmakers (read: liberal Democrats) were swept from office.

The Obama administration wasn’t going to take this lying down. Whether it was by tacit approval or via direct order remains largely immaterial. The president quickly and unlawfully politicized the Internal Revenue Service, using it as a weapon against his political enemies. In an explosive scandal that continues to grow, the Obama IRS was caught – smoking gun in hand – intentionally targeting conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for harassment, intimidation and, ultimately, for political destruction.

Not only has Obama faced zero accountability for these arguably impeachable offenses, he has since doubled down. With jaw-dropping gall, his administration has now moved to officially weaponize the IRS against conservatives once and for all.

Despite the furor over the IRS assault on conservative groups leading up to the 2012 elections, the Obama administration has quietly released a proposed set of new IRS regulations that, if implemented, will immediately, unlawfully and permanently muzzle conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and their individual employees. (The 501(c)(4) designation refers to the IRS code section under which social welfare organizations are regulated).

The new regulations would unconstitutionally compel a 90-day blackout period during election years in which conservative 501(c)(4) organizations – such as tea-party, pro-life and pro-family groups – would be banned from mentioning the name of any candidate for office, or even the name of any political party.

Here’s the kicker: As you may have guessed, liberal lobbying groups like labor unions and trade associations are deliberately exempted. And based on its partisan track record, don’t expect this president’s IRS to lift a finger to scrutinize liberal 501(c)(4)s. Over at a Obama’s “Organizing for America,” the left-wing political propaganda will, no doubt, flow unabated.

These Orwellian regulations will prohibit conservative 501(c)(4) organizations from using words like “oppose,” “vote,” or “defeat.” Their timing, prior to a pivotal election, is no coincidence and provides yet another example of Obama’s using the IRS for “progressive” political gain.

Although these restrictions only apply to 501(c)(4) organizations for now, under a straightforward reading, they will also clearly apply to 501(c)(3) organizations in the near future.

Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action – one of the many conservative organizations to be silenced – commented on the breaking scandal: “One of the core liberties in our constitutional republic is the right to dissent,” he said. “But desperate to force his radical agenda on the American people, Barack Obama and his chosen political tool, the IRS, are now trying to selectively abridge this right, effectively silencing their political adversaries.”

Specifically, here’s what the proposed regulations would do to conservative groups and their leaders:

• Prohibit using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject.”
• Prohibit mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
• Prohibit mentioning the name of a political party, 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office.
• Prohibit voter registration drives or conducting a non-partisan “get-out-the-vote drive.”
• Prohibit creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills.
• Prohibit hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before the general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program.
• Restrict employees of such organizations from volunteering for campaigns.
• Prohibit distributing any materials prepared on behalf a candidate for office.
• Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to publicly speak about incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records.
• Restrict the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges.
• Create a 90-day blackout period, on an election year, that restricts the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations.
• Declare political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare.
• Protect labor unions and trade associations by exempting them from the proposed regulations.

Continued Mat Staver: “We would be restricted in promoting conservative values, such as protecting our constitutional rights against these very kind of Executive Branch infringements.

“We would even be prohibited from criticizing the federal bureaucracy. If this new set of regulations goes into effect, Liberty Counsel Action – all conservative 501(c)(4)s for that matter – will be forbidden to ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ anything in the political arena and we’ll be prohibited from conducting our ‘get-out-the vote’ campaigns or issuing our popular voter guides.

“Further,” continue Staver, “individual employees of conservative groups will be banned from speaking or messaging on incumbents, legislation, and/or voting records – or speaking on the nominations of judges or political nominees being considered by the Senate. This also includes taking on state and local politicians.”

“These are the same tactics used by the Obama administration to illegally target conservative 501(c)(4) organizations during the last two election cycles, only now the strategy has been greatly intensified and formalized.

“You may recall that former President Richard Nixon was famously forced to resign for improperly using Executive Branch assets for political purposes.

“Rather than preparing a solid defense to confront these serious allegations, a brazen Barack Obama has chosen instead to reconfigure his illegal tactics into a set of ‘regulations’ on nonprofits, opening the door for an IRS crackdown on select organizations,” Staver concluded.

Indeed, once caught abusing his executive authority to target the very U.S. citizens he’s sworn to serve, even a nominally honorable man would immediately reverse course, resign and accept the consequences of his illegal actions.  But evidently, we’re not talking about an honorable man.

Take ACTION:  Freedom-loving Americans are asked to file a public comment in opposition to this proposed IRS regulation at Regulations.gov. All comments are due by Feb. 27, 2014.

Also, please sign this petition to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Taxation and IRS Oversight to ensure that all 501(c)(4) organizations formed to promote conservative values will be treated fairly by the IRS.

Three female Notre Dame University students who desperately want contraceptive coverage for their extracurricular activities are intervening in Notre Dame’s challenge to Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. According to their attorney, these three women claim they are “very much in need of contraception.” (It might behoove these women and their attorney to understand the difference between “need” and want.)

We’re expected to believe that three students who can afford to attend Notre Dame cannot afford to pay for birth control pills or condoms? Perhaps they should choose a less expensive institution, tinker with their budgets, or forgo premarital sex—which, in addition to contraception, violates Catholic doctrine.

Their attorney claims these women are “arguing for anonymity” because they fear having their actions criticized and then laughably calls them “courageous.”

Yes, nothing screams courage quite like demanding anonymity in the service of getting other people to pay for their voluntary sexual escapades, which violate the teachings of the university they voluntarily attend.

Why are Americans so peeved?

Is it Obamacare?

Well, partly – and in a big way. One wonders, in fact, if that sign language interpreter at the Mandela funeral moonlighted as the lead IT consultant for Healthcare.gov.

But it’s much more than just Obamacare. How do we explain America’s red-level economic and socio-political misery index?

Is it rising unemployment, or the shrinking economy?

Is it explosive debt and deficits, or pervasive government eavesdropping?

Is it the atrophy of individual liberty, or an unprecedented trampling of the First, Second, Fourth and nearly every other amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Finally, is it the systematic assault on natural marriage and family, or government sanctioning of mass infanticide?

Yes.

It’s all of these things and more.

Still, these things are only symptomatic of a far greater problem. There remains a broader explanation, a definitive catalyst, for this, the domestic winter of our discontent – and, as so often happens, a mere 14 words from the Holy Scriptures better elucidates that catalyst than ream upon ream of opinion page copy. The words are these: “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).

America groans because the wicked rule.

Indeed, under this president, America’s chief export has become immorality. Sexual deviancy, murder of the unborn, redistribution of wealth and other evils have been sanitized and propagandized as “basic human rights.”

Thus, when this arrogant man stands before the U.N. and decries those nations that refuse to embrace his special brand of pagan relativism, we shouldn’t be surprised if those nations push back.

And so they push back.

To be sure, in addition to triggering our own spike in angst, Obama’s fevered push to “call evil good and good evil,” is likewise responsible for America’s snowballing marginalization across the globe.

Under the tragic leadership of this “selfie”-centered narcissist, the United States, while never perfect, now looks less like Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and more like the biblical Whore of Babylon. A nation that once stood alone as the world’s moral guidepost now leads the contemptible charge to infect our privileged planet with its own viral iniquities.

And so the world pushes back.

For instance, there has been, of late, great weeping and gnashing of teeth among mainstream media – and other circles of intolerant “tolerance” – over successful efforts by several foreign governments to stem the tide of “LGBT” propaganda within their own sovereign borders.

Russia, India, Croatia, Peru, Jamaica and even Australia, for instance, along with other nations, are now moving to inoculate themselves from the fast-metastasizing cancer of sexual relativism.

Having witnessed, from afar, the poisonous results of such propaganda here in the U.S. (the hyper-sexualization of children, the deconstruction of natural marriage and family, the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease, religious persecution and the like), there seems an emerging global recognition that the radical “LGBT” agenda – a pet cause of Obama’s – is not about securing “human rights,” but, rather, is about promulgating moral wrongs.

The world is finding that forcing others to “tolerate” – indeed, to celebrate – unfettered licentiousness, under penalty of law, is as harmful to society as is said licentiousness to those who practice it.

The world has looked to America’s moral leadership and found it wanting. The climate under Obama has gotten so bad, in fact, that Russian leader Vladimir Putin feels emboldened to claim for Russia the mantle of world moral leader – a proud distinction hitherto held by the good ol’ USA.

The Daily Mail reports that, in his state of the nation address, “Putin sought to cast Russia as the moral arbiter of the world on Thursday, as he hit out at America’s ‘non-traditional values’ and its influence across the world.”

Russia has barred “LGBT” and other sexual anarchist propaganda.

“Mr Putin defended his government’s increasingly conservative values,” continued the report, “and decried the ‘review of norms of morality’ in the West and elsewhere.

“‘This destruction of traditional values from above not only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs counter to the will of the majority of people,’ Mr Putin said, adding there could be no benefit for society for treating ‘good and evil’ equally.”

How sad that the leader of an atheist government, in a country where tens of millions have died under Marxism – another of Obama’s pet causes – could out-Christian our once-Christian nation.

Meanwhile, the tiny nation of Jamaica is among hundreds more that are likewise feeling the squeeze from both the Obama administration and allied “LGBT” pressure groups. They’re pushing for unrestrained sexual license in that Caribbean state as well.

According to a Jamaican newspaper, The Gleaner, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, recently spoke at a pro-family conference there. LaBarbera “encouraged Jamaicans to be grounded in their Christian beliefs and not to be lured by other countries in repealing the buggery (sodomy) law.”

“The United States has no business lecturing anybody about sexual morality,” he observed. “America has rampant abortions, rampant promiscuity, and I stand wholeheartedly with Jamaicans and encourage you all to hold to your beliefs,” he said.

“The moral clarity of my kind, pro-family hosts was refreshing, and something we in the United States need to learn from and take heart from,” said LaBarbera upon his return. “I told them, The United States government has nothing to teach you about sexual morality, but you have much to teach us!”

“We are all watching Jamaica to see what happens,” he concluded, “and I believe if Jamaica can stand up and not bow to the pressure, you can be an example to the world. There is no need to follow anybody,” LaBarbera encouraged.

Indeed, there is certainly no need to follow America. Not on this. Fewer nations are buying what we’re selling. They’ve placed an embargo on our chief export.

While America may be lost (though I pray not), it would seem that her traditional values – values still shared by many, if not most, of the American people – are, nonetheless, gaining momentum abroad.

And that is encouraging.

Now let’s pray those values come full circle.

AFA and other pro-family groups have sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, urging the Department of Defense to stop using the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource.

SPLC materials are specifically anti-Christian and label many faith-based organizations like American Family Association, Illinois Family Institute and Family Research Council as “hate groups” because of our strong stand defending traditional marriage laws and resisting the aggressive, radical homosexual agenda.

The Department of Defense should stop using SPLC’s fabrications immediately. Add your voice to ours!

The American Family Association has been singled out as a “hate group” in briefings at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, and Fort Hood, Texas by military trainers relying on false SPLC materials.

In one presentation, the photo of Fred Phelps of “God hates fags” fame was disgustingly displayed on a screen with AFA’s logo. Not only did trainers lie by claiming there was an association between AFA and Phelps, they warned our men and women in training that to have any dealings with AFA, including making donations, would be a breach of conduct.

The SPLC has no credibility among people who value truth, and the military should not be using it as a source for training materials for service members.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to join the coalition of conservative organizations in sending your copy of the letter we wrote to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel urging the Department of Defense to stop using the Southern Poverty Law Center as a resource.  

 Read more:  What is Wrong with the Southern Poverty Law Center? by IFI’s Laurie Higgins