It is hard to imagine that television programming could become any more vile and vulgar than it already is.  Yet the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) apparently believes that vulgarity, pornography and smut have a place on the public airwaves.

The FCC is considering a change in broadcast decency policies that would permit “isolated” expletives and “isolated” nudity to be aired on network television broadcasts.  Under the change being considered, “deliberate and repetitive use of expletives in a patently offensive manner [would be] requisite to a finding of indecency.”  The Commission is debating whether to treat instances of nudity in the same fashion.

The proposed enforcement scheme is being referred to as the “egregious cases policy.”  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski arbitrarily announced last September that the agency was going to limit its enforcement activity to “egregious cases” to reduce the backlog of pending complaints.  As a result, the FCC discarded over a million consumer complaints, amounting to nearly 70 percent of its caseload.

Chairman Genachowski’s action followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier last year in which the Court ruled that the FCC’s indecency enforcement standards were too vague.  The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the FCC had failed to give broadcasters fair notice that they could be fined for the airing of “fleeting expletives” and momentary nudity.

The cases that reached the Supreme Court were filed by the Fox and ABC Television networks, and were strongly backed by all the broadcast television corporations.  The cases in question involved obscenities uttered during Billboard Music Award shows, and nudity on the police drama NYPD Blue.  The FCC policy banned profane language during daytime hours, and also prohibited nudity if it was shown in a sexually provocative manner.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not rule that the indecency policy itself was unconstitutional.  It simply held that broadcasters had a right to be served notice in advance as to what the policy clearly prohibited.  The FCC had the option of clarifying its policy in a way that provided broadcasters with adequate warning as to the nature of content which would be deemed objectionable.

If the policy change is implemented, network television productions will look and sound more like cable television programming.  Broadcast television shows will be loaded with even more foul-mouthed dialogue and even more explicit story lines of debauchery, spliced together with now familiar depictions of the most gruesome violence possible.

“Today’s television programming already goes well beyond the content parameters most parents find acceptable,” says Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.  “If the FCC drops this standard, the networks will give us all the profanity and nudity they think they can get away with, and keep pushing the envelope.”

“The pressure for this is coming from the broadcast networks, who don’t want to be accountable to anyone for their content,” Fischer continues.  “But the airwaves are owned by the American people, and the FCC is supposed to be a responsible steward of the airwaves for their true owners.”

Tim Winter, President of the Parents Television Council, agrees.  “The FCC’s duty is is to represent the interests of the American public, not the interests of the entertainment industry.  Either material is legally indecent or not.  It is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order to be actionable.”

Chairman Genachowski is coming under sharp criticism for his unauthorized action to unilaterally dismiss hundreds of thousands of complaints filed with the FCC concerning indecency by American citizens.  “The FCC chairman has made this unilateral policy change without any input from the rest of the FCC, the Congress, or the public,” says Dan Isett, director of public policy for the Parents Television Council. 

“There has been a law in place regarding indecent material broadcast over the publicly owned airwaves since the dawn of the medium, almost 100 years,” Isett adds.  “Now a single FCC chairman has made a de facto decision that there will be virtually no standard at all.”

Penny Nance, President of Concerned Women for America, expressed alarm over the consequences of relaxing current indecency standards.  “It is unfathomable to think the FCC actually wants to allow more filth, such as frontal female nudity, the F-bomb, and the “S” word during hours when our kids will be watching and listening.”

Leading pro-family leaders have co-signed a letter to federal legislators calling on members of Congress to oppose the policy change.  “The FCC has been derelict [in its duties] under the leadership of Chairman Julius Genachowski, having executed no enforcement actions during his tenure,” the letter states.

The last study entitled “Sex on TV” conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that more than 70 percent of all shows on network television contained sexual content.  More than 80 percent of parents believed that exposure to sexual content contributes to children becoming sexually active at any early age.  Nearly 3 out of 4 adolescents agreed that sexual content on television has a significant influence on the sexual behavior of their peers.

“American society is moving further and further away from the Biblical standards of morality and decency set by God,” says Don Wildmon, founder of the American  Family Association.  “Now we have to worry about what our children view in the supermarket checkout, in their school textbooks, and now even in their own homes on television and radio.  It is essential that the FCC uphold high decency standards in entertainment in order to protect America’s children and families.”

The public comment period for the proposed changes in television indecency policy expires next Wednesday, June 19th.  We strongly urge you to register your concern online through the FCC’s electronic filing system.  You can do so by using the link below and following these instructions:  FCC Comment

Once you have opened the site, click on the feature that reads “submit a filing.”  On the next page, you will find a series of boxes.  Where its says “proceeding number,” type in “13-86.”  Under “type of filing,” choose “comment.”  Just follow the instructions from there.

Please be praying that the FCC commissioners will seriously examine the extremely negative consequences of this proposed policy change on American children and families, and on the entertainment climate that pervades our culture.  Evil is already glamorized and popularized by Hollywood in every conceivable way.  Our government doesn’t need to participate in making Satan’s job less challenging.

This may not be the best time to assume that the Internal Revenue Service has some rationality behind its actions.  Still, if they do, we may be in big trouble in a few years. 
 
The IRS is going to be tasked heavily with the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare.  They issued a regulation last month that included two calculations for the cost to the average family of four and to a family of five without insurance.  (Far fewer people will have private insurance by 2016, the date in upon which this calculation is based.).  In both examples the IRS calculated that the yearly cost of Obamacare to families would be $20,000.
 
Obamacare supporters reacted quickly to this shocking news. They countered that this was simply a hypothetical example the IRS had created to illustrate how they calculate the tax penalties for those who do not obey the new law and purchase Obamacare.   While this is possible, it begs credibility. 
 
Why would the IRS make up a wildly unrealistic premium cost scenario when it could have just as easily shown how its penalties, (called the “shared responsibility payment”) will be assessed on a healthcare plan costing only $10,000.  Moreover, the penalty amounts used in the $20k calculation are those we have already seen reported without dispute.  Why bother to use real penalty figures along with wildly unrealistic premium costs simply to display a calculation example?

You may have heard something a few weeks ago in regard to an increase in sexual assaults within the military.  The media made a big deal out of a new Department of Defense study showing a dramatic increase in sexual assaults upon women in our military.   Such attention was justified. The study found that in fiscal year 2012 there were 26,000 sexual assaults that took place in our armed forces.  More than 6 percent of our female soldiers reported being the victims of a sexual assault. In spite of more political correctness and teachings of tolerance, sexual assaults within the U.S. military have increased 129 percent since 2004.
 
However, largely ignored by the media, were the numbers of sexual assaults against men following the lifting of the prohibition on homosexuality in the military.  The Pentagon’s study found that 14,000 of the sexual assault victims were men.  Women are identified as the attacker in just two percent of all assaults, meaning that most men who suffered sexual assaults were targeted by other men. 
 
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, discussed the report in a radio interview with World Net Daily. “So we’ve got a male-on-male problem here. The Department of Defense doesn’t want to comment on this. They know that the numbers are there.  They say that they care, but all the attention is usually given to the female members of the military who are subjected to sexual assault,” Donnelly said.
 
A homosexual demands group had what must be the most bizarre response possible to this report. Aaron Belkin, of the Palm Center, said the rise in male-on-male sexual assault does not really reflect the increase of homosexuals in the military but, rather, those assaults are ”somewhat similar to prison rape.”   (Don’t worry. You can pause here and say “huh?”  I did.)
 
I’ve never understood how homosexual activists have been allowed to claim that forcible sex, either a man and a boy, or a male aggressor pursuing male soldiers, is doing something totally detached from homosexual desire.  Does anyone think that a rapist, all jacked up on porn, who attacks a woman is not acting out heterosexually?   In any event, that’s not a very comforting recruiting slogan for young men considering the military.  “Don’t worry about it. . . It’s not gay, it’s just something like prison sex.” 
 
If we were to continue our war against gender differences and foolishly began allowing men in women’s barracks and showers, and a new Pentagon report showed an enormous increase in sexual assaults on female soldiers, wouldn’t that finding capture every headline and news feed in the nation?    Somehow, allowing homosexual men in men’s barracks with a corresponding dramatic increase in sexual assaults on male soldiers is not newsworthy anywhere beyond a few conservative outlets.

The Thomas More Society is speaking out about blatant bias by the supposedly apolitical tax-collection agency. Cases handled by the Chicago-based public interest law firm support mounting accusations that demonstrate the agency’s abuse of pro-life organizations, in addition to those identified as ‘tea party’, ‘patriot’, or ‘government spending’ groups. Outrage spurred by recent revelations of IRS discrimination against these groups has also led the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to announce a full investigation into the matter.

In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent “Ms. Richards” told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved. After a series of letters following a request for more invasive information, Thomas More Society special counsel Sally Wagenmaker sent a letter to the IRS demanding the tax exempt status be issued immediately.

Wagenmaker summarized her concerns about what she called “the IRS’s disturbing ability” to stall and suppress legitimate applicants. She explained how through lengthy questionnaires and wrong citations of applicable law (as in the case of Coalition for Life of Iowa), applicants with less fortitude or without access to legal advocates like the Thomas More Society will be effectively silenced from exercising their constitutional freedoms. Wagenmaker added, “The IRS’s role should only be to determine whether organizations fit the section 501(c)(3) test for ‘charitable, religious, or educational’ qualification, not to inquire about the content of prayers, protests, and petitions. It’s high time that the IRS be called to account for its workers’ potential to trample on our constitutional rights, through such ostensibly innocuous means…what the Ways and Means committee will discuss may only be the tip of the iceberg of IRS abuses.”

In another similar case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with “40 Days for Life” and “Life Chain” events. The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.

“The application of Christian Voices for Life clearly indicated that the organization qualified as a charitable organization under section 501(c)(3),” stated Sally Wagenmaker. She added, “The IRS seemed to be intent on denying or delaying tax-exempt status based upon the organization’s pro-life message, rather than any legitimate exemption concern, through its exhaustive, cumbersome questioning. The implication that Christian Voices for Life somehow intended to engage in illegal activity was insulting.”

Sally Wagenmaker is available for interviews. Contact Tom Ciesielka at 312-422-1333 or tc@tcpr.net.

Details on the IRS abuse of “Christian Voices for Life” are available here.

Details on the IRS abuse of “Coalition for Life of Iowa” are available here.

Christian Newswire

Written by Tim Wildmon

An Army officer has sent an email to subordinates labeling conservative Christian organizations as “domestic hate groups” and stating their values don’t align with “Army values.”

AFA has obtained the 14-page email sent out by Lt. Col. Jack Rich telling other officers and soldiers at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, that, specifically, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council are “domestic hate groups” because they oppose homosexuality. Rich said: “When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values, don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem.” (See the email here)

Rich took inflammatory and incendiary language directly from the website of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center, then purposely and specifically chose AFA and FRC as examples of “domestic hate groups.”

There are thousands and thousands of people enlisted in the United States Army who are themselves Christian and would resent the fact that this one lieutenant colonel is purporting to speak for the whole Army by saying AFA and FRC don’t represent “Army values.”

President Barack Obama just announced that Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, is his pick to be Secretary of Labor. One year ago, I wrote about the White House’s passionate embrace of all things homosexual. In that article, I included a brief discussion of Thomas Perez’ troubling efforts to use public funds and his job to promote the normalization of homosexuality. Here’s that excerpt:

This Obama administration effort follows close on the heels of a pinheaded and inappropriate decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to create a video for Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” project. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez showed the DOJ video to public high school students in Silver Spring, Maryland. Here are a few of the comments made by DOJ employees–most of whom identify as homosexual–in their roles as government employees:

• “Being different is cool.”
• “Don’t be ashamed of who you are. Keep being yourself.”
• “If I knew when I was eight that the thing that was causing me so much pain… would actually define me in a way that makes me very, very proud, I would get through it.”

These should be shocking comments to hear in a publicly funded project of the federal government. The federal government has made the astonishing public claims that homosexuality is “cool,” that no one should be ashamed of homosexuality, and that homosexuality should be a source of pride. The individuals who appear in this video are, of course, entitled to their own non-factual ontological and moral beliefs. In their roles as government employees, however, they have no right to promote those subjective, non-factual beliefs. 

This video should be a public scandal. Imagine if philosophically conservative government employees appeared in a publicly funded video in their professional roles saying that it is not cool to engage in homosexual acts, that homosexual acts are shameful, and that homosexuality is not something of which to be proud. 

It is objectively true that no one should be bullied. It is not objectively true that homosexuality is cool, that people should keep living a homosexual life, or that homosexuality is worthy of pride or respect. No employee of the government acting in their official position has any right to promote those arguable moral beliefs. 

At the conclusion of the high school propaganda session, likely held during Mr. Perez’s working hours, students were invited to sign the “It Gets Better” pledge, the first sentence of which states, “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are.” A feckless statement, but oh so persuasive with non-thinking people. The statement suggests without stating that those who identify as homosexual should be respected for their homosexuality. That is a moral proposition which is widely rejected and which no representative of the government has any right to promote in their professional role. 

Everyone deserves to be respected because they’re human beings created in the likeness of God. It should be obvious, however, that not every subjective feeling or behavioral choice is worthy of respect. Humans deserve to be respected for their humanness in spite of their disordered inclinations and immoral volitional acts.

If this isn’t sufficient reason to oppose Perez’ nomination, here’s another. The executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has issued a press release in which she exults:

Thomas Perez is a terrific choice for labor secretary…. The Labor Department is critical to advancing, enforcing and preserving policies that directly impact the lives and livelihoods of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and our families. It has made significant policy advances over the past few years in this regard….Thomas Perez at the helm of the Labor Department will help keep this momentum moving forward.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to U.S. Senators Dick Dubin and Mark Kirk to oppose this controversial nominee.

The future of the institution of marriage in the United States will be decided next year as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on two landmark cases.  The High Court has agreed to hear legal challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to a California constitutional amendment preserving the definition of natural marriage.

In the most momentous case, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which was approved by California voters in 2008.  Proposition 8 amended California’s state constitution to affirm that marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman.  The passage of Proposition 8 reversed a unilateral decision of the California Supreme Court which mandated that marriage be redefined to include homosexual unions.

Proposition 8 was struck down by a homosexual U.S. District Judge whose ruling was broadly criticized as a “gay rights” manifesto,  rather than a reasoned examination of constitutional law.  That decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in a bizarre ruling that applied its result only to the state of California, rather than the entire Ninth Circuit.  The ruling by the Ninth Circuit has been on hold pending what is now a successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leading voices in the pro-marriage movement are calling the decision by the Supreme Court to hear the California case welcome news.  “We believe it is a strong signal that the court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8,” says John Eastman, chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage.

“Had the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decisions invalidating Proposition 8, it could simply have declined to hear the case,”  Eastman continues.  “It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco.”

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western civilization,” says Jim Campbell, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.  “We look forward to advocating before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people’s right to preserve this fundamental building block of civilization.”

Forty-one states currently have laws on the books defining marriage in historical terms as the union of one man and one woman — including Illinois.  Thirty of those states have incorporated definitions of traditional marriage in their state constitutions.  

The Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, has the potential to be the Roe v. Wade of the national debate over the institution of marriage.  Should the Supreme Court uphold the Ninth Circuit decision, it would almost assuredly lead to the invalidation of all state laws protecting marriage, much like Roe v. Wade nullified all state laws protecting the unborn child.

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization of Marriage, believes such an outcome “would launch a national culture war.”  “The majority of Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman are never going to go away.”  A Supreme Court decree mandating so-called “same-sex marriage” on the nation would result in an explosive legal, cultural, and religious civil war more intense than the decades-old national struggle over legalized abortion.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, agrees, saying  “Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision.  Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.”

The other case the Supreme Court agreed to hear, United States v. Windsor, involves a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  This federal DOMA protects states who have preserved the institution of marriage from being required to acknowledge same-sex unions approved in other states. 

However, the legal challenge to the federal DOMA regards another provision that provides that government spousal benefits can only be extended to someone in a valid marriage between a man and a woman.   The plaintiff, Edith Windsor of New York’s Greenwich Village, claims she should not have to pay inheritance taxes on the estate of her lifelong lesbian partner.   The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal benefits section of DOMA is unconstitutional, echoing a decision made by a Boston appeals court in another DOMA challenge.

The Supreme Court will have to decide whether that section of DOMA is constitutional in its entirety, or whether it is unconstitutional as applied in states where marriage has been redefined to include homosexual unions.  In a stunning example of dereliction of duty, President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Justice Department not to defend the federal DOMA in court.  The U.S. House of Representatives stepped forward to provide its own legal defense of the federal DOMA in the absence of Justice Department attorneys.

Some homosexual activists believe momentum is on their side following the decision by voters last month in Washington, Maine, and Maryland to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions.  Those three states join the states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa, where so-called same-sex “marriage” has been mandated by state courts or state legislatures.

Other homosexual activists are wary of an unfavorable High Court decision that could prove to be a major setback for their agenda.  Even if the Supreme Court were to force same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, some legal voices in the homosexual community believe that such a decision would be premature, prompting a potent backlash that would refuel the defense of traditional marriage.

The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to hear oral arguments in March, and issue a decision by late June.  Please be praying for all the Justices, particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is expected to be the crucial vote in determining the outcome of these cases. 

With each passing day the divide between Left and Right in America is becoming more clearly delineated.  The differences could not be more stark, nor the consequences more dramatic. 

The December 1st Chicago Tribune front page highlighted the Radical Left Rick Garcia’s assault on the Salvation Army because of its position on homosexual “rights.”  Mr. Garcia clearly believes that homosexuals gaining “marriage” as a right is more important than all the good that organizations such as the Salvation Army do.   This great organization is one of the most loved and respected charities in the world, but that is irrelevant to the radical Left.  This is just one of many distinctions between the two sides.  The Left is clearly unconcerned about the cost of their demands to others.  It is narcissism on steroids.

The traditional family is unquestionably the best thing going for children.  God created it, every healthy society depends upon it, and any culture that loses it fails.  But, since it stands in the way of same-sex marriage, it must go.  Now, the radicals will not likely admit that eliminating traditional marriage is their goal, or that marriage will be undermined by the acceptance of same-sex marriage, but one need only look to countries where same-sex marriage has been accepted to see the demise of traditional marriage.  And, children are the big losers!

Homosexual marriage is not the only enemy of traditional marriage, and it is not marriage’s greatest enemy, either.  Have we forgotten that there was a time when the norm for most Americans was to abstain from sexual activity until marriage?  In 1960, studies show that 83% of black children were born into intact, two parent families.  With the onset of the “Sexual Revolution” the Left attacked the family ferociously and today, 80% of black children are born into a home without a father.  All races considered, currently somewhere around 40% of American children spend significant time in a single parent home.   Inner-city violence, gang activity, and the slaughter of young men at the hands of other young men are directly traceable to the break-down of the family.  The children suffer from the selfishness of the Left, and the Left clearly doesn’t care.  If they did, they would not fight so viciously the changes necessary to reverse this horrendous reality!

The Democrats at their National Convention this year could not muster enough votes to include a reference to God in their platform, so after three failed attempts the leadership simply rammed it through.  They understood the political  implications of voting God “out” and did what they needed to do to at least keep the word “God” in their platform.  But, it was clear that the majority of the leaders of the Democrat Party are now uncomfortable with any significant acknowledgement of God in American life!

The demographics of the recent election are also enlightening, but an important point was missed by many.  Following the defeat of Gov. Mitt Romney, pundits pointed out that married women voted in significantly higher numbers for the Republican candidate while single women were more likely to vote for the President, and many suggested that Republicans could improve their odds for the future by encouraging single women to get married!  What no one noted was that as women become RESPONSIBLE for children, they tend to vote CONSERVATIVE!  The two go hand in hand!  Responsibility and maturity lead to conservative values.  “Doing your own thing” narcissism is rather a tenet of liberalism.  Those who have matured to take on the serious care of others understand instinctively what is best for children!

The principle also holds true in the world of business.  Those who took on the huge responsibility of starting a company that could in turn provide for their own families and many others overwhelmingly voted for the conservative candidate.  Those who are content to depend on others voted for the President.  There was a time when parents believed raising their children to be self-sufficient adults was a primary responsibility of parenting!  Not so any more.

This Nation’s track record with regard to children over the last four decades reveals the tragic reality that there is no room on the road of liberal culture for both children and a left-leaning, narcissistic electorate.   The Left will not relinquish any of its gains even to provide a safe haven for children. Liberals such as Chai Rachel Feldblum have publicly noted that either the ideals of the Left or conservatism and the traditional family will survive, but not both.  And, the notion that we can travel safely down the road laid out for us by the President and the Left is a phantasm.  All cultures that have attempted it in the past have inevitably collapsed.

Thus we see the conflict between the two factions which the President and other Leftists have exploited for their own political and economic gain.  On the Left, we find moral relativism, gay and abortion rights, sexual “liberation,” expanding welfare and no God.  On the Right, we have an open acknowledgement of God’s role in society, the family, organizations such as traditional churches, the Salvation Army, married women and children, and  entrepreneurs who have risked all to start companies which will provide jobs for others, even to the Leftists who hate them.

As this election’s results play out over the next few months and years, on which side of the great divide will you stand?

Psalm 92

It is good to give thanks to the LORD,
And to sing praises to Your name, O Most High;
To declare Your lovingkindness in the morning,
And Your faithfulness every night,
On an instrument of ten strings,
On the lute,
And on the harp,
With harmonious sound.
For You, LORD, have made me glad through Your work;
I will triumph in the works of Your hands.

O LORD, how great are Your works!
Your thoughts are very deep.
A senseless man does not know,
Nor does a fool understand this.
When the wicked spring up like grass,
And when all the workers of iniquity flourish,
It is that they may be destroyed forever.

But You, LORD, are on high forevermore.
For behold, Your enemies, O LORD,
For behold, Your enemies shall perish;
All the workers of iniquity shall be scattered.

But my horn You have exalted like a wild ox;
I have been anointed with fresh oil.
My eye also has seen my desire on my enemies;
My ears hear my desire on the wicked
Who rise up against me.

The righteous shall flourish like a palm tree,
He shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
Those who are planted in the house of the LORD
Shall flourish in the courts of our God.
They shall still bear fruit in old age;
They shall be fresh and flourishing,
To declare that the LORD is upright;
He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.

In addition to the IFI Religious Liberty Rally being held in Orland Park this Saturday morning (Oct. 13), a number of communities across the nation will host Stand Up for Religious Freedom  rallies on Saturday October 20.  

This is the third and final such rally co-sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League  and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society before the General Election.  Tens of thousands of Americans in over 135 cities will take to the streets in public protest against the federal Health and Human Services mandate (HHS) or commonly known as “Obamacare” and other religious freedom issues.

The Stand Up Rally will be held at noon at federal buildings, Congressional offices and historic sites in such cities as Chicago, New York, Detroit, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Philadelphia. The full list of rally sites is available at StandUpRally.com. (Some rally start times vary, check website for time, location and local contacts).

 Illinois locations include:

Chicago (Sponsored by Pro-Life Action League)
March from Federal Plaza to Daley Plaza
Meet at Adams and Dearborn Streets (map)
RSVP the Chicago rally on Facebook
Email the Chicago Rally Captain

Peoria  (NOTE: The Peoria Rally will begin at 11 a.m.)
Gateway Building
200 Northeast Water Street (map)
Email the Peoria Rally Captain

Rockford
Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse
327 South Church Street (map)
Email the Rockford Rally Captain

Sterling 
(Site to be determined.)
Email the Sterling Rally Captain

Woodstock
McHenry County Courthouse
2200 N. Seminary Avenue (Highway 47) (map)
Email the Woodstock Rally Captain

John Jansen, project coordinator for the Pro-Life Action League, maintains opposition among the American people to the HHS Mandate’s assault on religious freedom continues to grow.

“Clearly, the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate is very unpopular unprecedented assault on religious freedom and Americans are standing up and standing up in very large numbers,” said Jansen. “They are coming out to rally in the public square in ways we haven’t seen in a very long time.”

 Jansen notes one key outcome of the rallies is to motivate people to vote in the upcoming November election.

“One of the purposes of the rally is to encourage people to vote for life and liberty,” said Jansen. “It is a simple and straightforward message. These are issues we need to be aware of and we need to remember them when we go to the polls on Election Day.”

 For more information about times and locations or to contact state directors, visit StandUpRally.com.

The Democratic Party and liberal pundits are trying to make the case that because Mitt Romney is extraordinarily wealthy, he can’t relate to the struggles of average or economically disadvantaged folk; and if he can’t relate to their struggles, he doesn’t care; and if he doesn’t care, he is unworthy of the office of president.

History demonstrates that that argument fails miserably.

In 2010, the Wall Street Journal published a list of the inflation-adjusted net worth of past American presidents. Some of our finest presidents and some presidents that the Left love were also men of considerable means. Some inherited their wealth, some made it themselves.

• John F. Kennedy (according to WSJ, “Although he never inherited his father’s fortune, the Kennedy family estate was worth nearly $1 billion”)
• George Washington ($525 million)
• Thomas Jefferson ($212 million)
• Theodore Roosevelt ($125 million)
• Andrew Jackson ($119 million)
• James Madison ($101 million)
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt ($60 million)
• Bill Clinton ($38 million)
• James Monroe ($27 million)
• John Quincy Adams ($21 million)
• John Adams ($19 million)
• Dwight Eisenhower ($8 million)

And let’s not forget the extraordinarily wealthy Democrats who have served or are serving in Congress (some of whom sought to be president). Information comes from Roll Call and The Center for Responsive Politics :

Democratic U.S. Senators:

• John Kerry ($193.07 million)
• Jay Rockefeller ($81.63 million)
• Ted Kennedy ($43-163 million)
• Mark Warner ($70.30 million)
• Frank Lautenberg ($55.07 million)
• Richard Blumenthal ($52.93 million)
• Dianne Feinstein ($45.39 million)
• Claire McCaskill ($17 million)
• Tom Harkin ($10.28 million)
• Herb Kohl ($9.23 million)
• Jeff Bingaman ($7.41 million)
• Kay Hagan ($70.6 million)
• Ben Nelson ($6.56)

Democratic U.S. Representatives:

• Nancy Pelosi ($35.20 million)
• Jared Polis ($65.91 million)
• Nita Lowey ($15.46 million)
• Carolyn Maloney ($10.14 million)
• Shelley Berkeley ($9.29 million)
• Lloyd Doggett ($8.53 million)

If being raised by wealthy parents or possessing wealth renders people unable to relate to the poor and unable to be compassionate, are George Clooney, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet callous men unable to feel the pain of the disadvantaged? Are they unable to provide solutions to the problems that plague those with fewer material blessings?

What about Obama’s daughters? They have never known poverty. They are being raised in privilege and affluence, attending the most expensive private schools in the country. Are their characters being deformed by such affluence and privilege? Will they become callous young women unable to relate to the disadvantaged, lacking in compassion, and unable to contribute to solutions for those who have far fewer privileges?

Chelsea Clinton was raised in affluence, attended the best schools in the country, and married a wealthy Wall Street hedge fund employee who previously worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Is she a heartless, selfish elitist unfit for serving the less privileged?

According to CNBC , Hillary Clinton’s current net worth is $85 million. What will Democrats say about that if she decides to run for president in four or eight years?

If wealth renders people compassionless and unsuitable for elected office, Democrats need to tell Americans how much wealth disqualifies a person for the office of president. And does wealth equally disqualify someone for fitness for Congressional office?

The truth is that one doesn’t have to “relate” to those who are poor to have deep sympathy and empathy for their suffering.  Wealthy people often have the luxury to travel and read deeply about the world. Through these experiences, their eyes, minds, and hearts are opened to the suffering around the world and here at home. It’s true that among the wealthy there can be found greed, self-absorption, and cruelty, but there can also be found thankfulness, selflessness, generosity, and kindness. Sometimes people who have been given much or earned much are acutely aware of their blessings and believe that to whom much is given, much is required.

There is ample evidence that those who have been raised in privileged circumstances and those who have worked doggedly to be successful are fully capable of feeling compassion, demonstrating service, and finding solutions to even the most challenging social problems.  The argument that wealthy people cannot serve the poor is foolish, dishonest, and—as is so often the case with liberal arguments—inconsistently applied only to conservatives.

Many pro-family leaders are praising the GOP platform for its strong language in a variety of areas. For example, Phyliss Schlafly noted this week in an editorial in the Washington Times that the platform has the successful three-legged stool model that Ronald Reagan won with through strong national defense, economic conservatism and family values. 

One item responsible parents will appreciate is the replacement of language opposing child pornography with a broader call for the enforcement of all laws on obscenity. For years various coalitions have been calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce obscenity laws passed by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even when John Aschroft, someone whom I greatly admire, was U.S. Attorney General, his actions on this problem were not much better than that of the Clinton Administration under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. (Not since Bush 41 has any Justice Department done much other than enforcement of child porn laws, although under the Bush 43 administration an increased emphasis on human trafficking began to appear, which is related to our pornographic culture.)

Placement of this broader call to action into the Republican Party platform may help achieve that much needed enforcement if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is replaced by a different administration. 

Today, nearly 110 million Americans are receiving welfare from the federal government. There are more than 80 different means tested welfare programs administered by the federal government today. Food stamps and Medicaid make up the largest chunk of the handouts. Since 2000 Medicaid has increased from 34 million recipients to 54 million recipients in 2011. During that same timeframe, food stamps (SNAP) grew from 17 million to 45 million recipients in 2011. Since Barack Obama became President, spending on food stamps has increase 100 percent.

Why is this 100 million dependency mark so significant? There are just 314 million people in the United States. One third of our citizens are now welfare recipients. This is disgraceful. It is NOT what our founders desired for our nation.

In January 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) gave the first inaugural address on January 20th rather than March 4th. He had won in a landslide, promising to stay the course and finally end the Great Depression.  Though it is now long forgotten, his inaugural address became known as the “one-third of a nation” speech. Here the part of that speech for which it was named:

“I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.
I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.
I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.
I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.
I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.”

I would contend (after reading Amity Shales The Forgotten Man) that what ended the Great Depression was not FDR’s policies, which probably extended the Depression, rather it was World War ll that brought it to an end. The point is that once again, under President Obama, we now have the Great Recession in which a third of our nation are in such need that they are on welfare.

The question some should be asking is “why?” It has been said that if you buy groceries and keep going to the same cashier who always shorts you your change, after a while it’s no longer a mistake.

It is now my opinion that this huge growth in government dependency is intentional. If you look at the ideology of this President, his upbringing, his voting record as a State and U.S. Senator, his friends and mentors, it is not hard to believe as we enter his fourth year as President, that he sees this third as a Democratic constituency of needy voters whom he may well have purposefully grown without much angst or remorse. (There’s that Cloward-Piven theory again.)

There is simply no excuse for 42 months in a row of 8 percent plus unemployment with no end in sight, and no visible plan to change it. There are proven ways to get our economy going again. Yet, this administration, (unlike the Clinton administration), doesn’t review failed policies and adjust or moderate them.  In spite of all our problems getting worse after these policies, Pres. Obama bores down even more because he is either a fool, (which he is not) or he has a larger purpose behind his methods.   

We really are a nation in crisis in so many ways.  Intellectual scholar, Victor David Hanson has an interesting article about our fisical problems, human nature and past civilations that is worth reading on this topic this week at National Review called, “Are We Doomed?”  Read it HERE.