Ted Nugent and Franklin Graham Have Something in Common?

Legendary Rocker “The Motor City Madman” Ted Nugent, and Evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the great Reverend Billy Graham, have something in common.  The administration does not want them near our “Best and Brightest”.

Per Foxnews.com:

The U.S. Army has nixed Ted Nugent from the lineup at a Fort Knox concert scheduled for late June, after the outspoken rocker made controversial remarks about President Obama.

The decision comes after Nugent met with Secret Service officials Thursday — the Service said at the time the issue had been “resolved.”

But the Army went on to cancel Nugent’s performance set for June 23 at the Fort Knox annual summer concert.

“Co-headliners REO Speedwagon and Styx remain scheduled to perform,” a statement on the Fort Knox Facebook page said. “However, after learning of opening act Ted Nugent’s recent public comments about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided to cancel his performance on the installation.”

Organizers are offering refunds, though the statement said they may find a replacement for Nugent’s act.

Nugent, who recently endorsed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said during a recent National Rifle Association convention that the Obama administration was “vile,” “evil” and “America-hating.”

He also said that if the president is re-elected, “I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Nugent later said his remarks were not a call to violence.

Obama and his minions have a habit of “banning” those who say something that they don’t like, from speaking to the troops.  Remember this from The Washington Post of April 22, 2010?

The Army has withdrawn an invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at a special Pentagon prayer service next month because of his controversial views on Islam, said Col. Thomas Collins, spokesman for the U.S. Army.

Colins said Graham’s remarks were “not appropriate. We’re an all-inclusive military. We honor all faiths. … Our message to our service and civilian work force is about the need for diversity and appreciation of all faiths.”

Graham issued this statement: “I regret that the Army felt it was necessary to rescind their invitation to the National Day of Prayer Task Force to participate in the Pentagon’s special prayer service. I want to express my strong support for the United States military and all our troops. I will continue to pray that God will give them guidance, wisdom and protection as they serve this great country.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation objected to Graham’s scheduled appearance at the prayer event, largely because of his past remarks about Islam as an evil religion. “Lady liberty is smiling today,” said Weinstein, MRFF president, who sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, objecting to Graham’s scheduled appearance. Weinstein said the invitation offended Muslim employees at the Pentagon and would endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists.

Weinstein said the foundation’s DC attorney, Victor Glasberg, was planning today to go to court to seek a restraining order against the entire prayer event as unconstitutional. Last week, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. “We congratulate the Pentagon for making the right decision, but it’s a shame that it had to be made under duress.” Weinstein said the Pentagon plans to replace Graham with “a more inclusive” interfaith figure.

Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, was invited to speak at the event by the Colorado-based National Day of Prayer Task Force, which works with the Pentagon chaplain’s office on the prayer event. The task force organizes Christian events for the National Day of Prayer. Graham is president and CEO of both Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian international relief organization in Boone, N.C., and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Charlotte.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam “is a very evil and wicked religion.” In a later op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Graham wrote that he did not believe Muslims were evil because of their faith, but “as a minister …. I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.”

Last month, in a video interview with On Faith’s Sally Quinn, Graha, repeated some of those remarks, but also said “I am not on a crusade against Muslims. I love the Muslim people . . . I want them to know that they don’t have to die in a car bomb, don’t have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it’s through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone.”

The MRFF claims to represent 17,000 members of the armed forces — 96 percent of whom are Protestant or Catholic. “Those who hate us really hate us today,” said Weinstein. “But those who love us really love us.”

Collins said the National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon “will continue as scheduled under the administration of the office of the Pentagon Chaplain.”

It’s no secret that the 44th President of these United States is thin-skinned.  In fact, it’s become the stuff of legend.  As we head toward the General Election this November 6th, it could very well be his Achilles’ Heel.

Now, it’s up to Mitt Romney to take advantage of it.

Charles “Chuck” Colson: From Administrator to Evangelist

The Watergate Scandal was a dark point in the history of the American Presidency. But it was a momentary darkness, which led to a lifetime of life-saving ministry.

On 17th June 1972, 5 men were arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Initially, it was assumed that it was just a simple burglary that went wrong. However, when investigations started, it was found out that the men had entered the office to repair bugs that they had installed into the office nearly a week earlier.

On further investigations, it was found out that the so-called burglars were some how connected to the White House and were given the task to spy on the Democrats. One of the “burglars” arrested was named Jim McCord Jr. He was the security officer for Richard Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President. Even a diary was found which had the contact number of E Howard Hunt, who was an intelligence agent and a member of the White House plumbers, which was a secret team of agents working at the behest of the White House. The investigators went on to figure out that the E Howard Hunt along G Gordon Liddy were the brains behind the first break in. Soon it was found that there were many agents responsible for spying on the Democrats. A check meant for Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign was traced to the bank account of one of the burglars. This led the investigators to conclude that the campaign funds were being used to fund these illegal activities. However, even at this stage, it did not stop Richard Nixon, a Republican, to win the US president election.

James McCord sent a letter to the trial judge naming other people who were part of this conspiracy. With more and more evidence being unearthed, it was soon clear that Richard Nixon was personally involved in the scandal along with several members from his administration. It was also discovered that many of the conversations regarding the conspiracy took place in the Oval Office and these conversations were taped. Initially, Nixon denied the presence of the tapes, but due to US Supreme Court order, he was forced to hand over the tapes containing the damning conversations. However, some important conversations from these tapes were missing.

The US Congress was forced to begin the process of impeachment against Richard Nixon. However, before the culmination of the process, Nixon resigned on 9th August 1974. While Nixon himself did not serve any prison time, many of his aides were found guilty by the Grand Jury.

One of the men who helped to plan the break-in was Charles “Chuck” Colson.

Charles Wendell Colson was born in Boston in October, 1931. After graduating from Brown University Colson joined the U.S. Marine Corps (1953-55). This was followed by the post of Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1955–56).

Colson was a member of the Republican Party and in 1956 he became Administration Assistant to Senator Leverett Saltonstall. In 1961 Colson became a partner in the Gadsby and Hannah Law Firm.

In 1969 Colson was appointed to the White House staff as Counsel to President Richard Nixon. Colson also began involved in the activities of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). On 20th March, 1971, at a meeting of CREEP it was agreed to spend $250,000 “intelligence gathering” operation against the Democratic Party.

Colson and John Ehrlichman appointed E. Howard Hunt as a member of the White House Special Investigations Unit. On 15th May Arthur Bremer attempted to assassinate George Wallace. As a result Colson ordered Hunt to break into Bremer’s apartment to see if he could find any information that the Democratic Party was involved in the assassination. However, some have claimed that Hunt’s role was to remove incriminating documents from Bremer’s home.

…In 1974, Colson entered a plea of guilty to Watergate-related charges. He also pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Daniel Ellsberg case. He was given a one-to-three year sentence. However, he only served seven months at Alabama’s Maxwell Prison.

In 1976, Colson founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, which has become the world’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families. Colson has visited prisons throughout the US and the world and has built a movement working with more than 40,000 prison ministry volunteers, with ministries in 100 countries. Colson became highly critical of the prison system and in 1983 he established Justice Fellowship, a faith-based criminal justice reform group.

Chuck Colson passed away yesterday.

Chuckcolson.org has posted the following tribute:

Evangelical Christianity lost one of its most eloquent and influential voices today with the death of Charles W. “Chuck” Colson. The Prison Fellowship and Colson Center for Christian Worldview founder died at 3:12 p.m. on Saturday from complications resulting from a brain hemorrhage. Colson was 80.

A Watergate figure who emerged from the country’s worst political scandal, a vocal Christian leader and a champion for prison ministry, Colson spent the last years of his life in the dual role of leading Prison Fellowship, the world’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families, and the Colson Center, a teaching and training center focused on Christian worldview thought and application.

Colson was speaking at a Colson Center conference when he was overcome by dizziness. Quickly surrounded by friends and staff, Colson was sent to the Fairfax Inova Hospital in Fairfax, Virginia. On March 31, he underwent two hours of surgery to remove a pool of clotted blood on the surface of his brain. At times, Chuck showed encouraging indicators of a possible recovery, but his health took a decided turn, and he went to be with the Lord. His wife, Patty, and the family were with him in the last moments before he entered eternity.

Revered by his friends and supporters, Colson won the respect of those who disagreed with his religious and political views thanks to his tireless work on behalf of prisoners, ex-prisoners, and their families. Colson maintained that the greatest joy in life for him was to see those “living monuments” to God’s grace: Prisoners transformed by the love of Jesus Christ. And thanks to the work of Colson and Prison Fellowship volunteers across the country, there are thousands of those living monuments among us today.

A remarkable man.  A remarkable life.  A merciful, redeeming God.

An Interruption in Programming

Dear Friends and “Family”:

I will be off the grid for about a week or so.  Wednesday night, the Generation XY kids above our apartment decided to cook fried chicken and neglected to watch it cook, resulting in a grease fire.  Our ground-floor apartment was flooded by their sprinkler system, resulting in us being relocated (by the grace of God) to live for a while in a Corporate Unit at another apartment complex, owned by the corporation who owns ours.

Your prayers are welcome and appreciated.  It could have been a lot worse. Until I return, here is a recent post, to remind you of what I’m about.

God is Good.  All the time.

WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE?

I have been asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong 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 Reagan 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 Reagan 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 issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

He is Risen!

Wow. It’s really been amazing around here since they crucified Jesus. Did you feel that earthquake? The veil of the temple was torn in half! And did you hear? A bunch of people that had died years ago, were seen walking around the city! But that’s not all. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard?

Listen to this: He has risen! He arose from the dead and was seen by several people. It’s true! I know it sounds unbelievable. I can scarcely take it in myself. Mary Magdalene and Mary, James and Salome’s mother, went to the tomb to perform the anointing of His body and it wasn’t there! On top of that, there was this young guy there, dressed in a white robe. They said he must have been 9 feet tall. He said, “You are seeking Jesus of Nazareth. Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here. See the place where you laid him.” So they went and told the disciples. But you know how Peter is. He just had to go run up there and see for himself.

Jesus even approached two of them on the road to Emmaus. They didn’t recognize him. He even broke bread with them that night. They realized who He was and He disappeared! They ran to tell the disciples and as they were telling them, Jesus appeared right in front of them! They were all starting to panic. Jesus said, “Peace to you.” But they couldn’t believe it was him, especially Thomas. So he had him touch him in the hole in his hand where they drove the nail and where the spear pierced his side.

Jesus ate with them and performed other signs and miracles in front of them and they understood scripture as never before. He also came to them at the Sea of Tiberius. Peter took the disciples fishing and they weren’t catching anything. Jesus told them from the bank to cast the net down on the right side. They did, and they could hardly bring it in the boat! When they got back to land, Jesus already had a fire going and some fish and bread ready to eat. He asked Peter three times if he loved Him, and each time He told him “Feed my sheep’. Hey, isn’t that the same number of times Peter Denied Him?

Anyway, He taught them many things before He left. They watched as He was taken straight up into heaven. Can you imagine?

The disciples are making plans now to go out and starting spreading the Good News about Jesus’ Resurrection. They are talking about going out in pairs. Man. Nothing is ever going to be the same again.

“For God so loved the word, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16

I originally wrote and published the above post on Easter, April 4th, 2010.

As you read this post today:

33% of the world’s population are  Christian.

The top 3 countries with the largest national Christian populations are :

USA – 224,457,000 (85%)

Brazil – 139,000,000 (93%)

Mexico – 86,120,000 (99%)

There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries.

Today, in the United States of America, about 78% (244, 140,000) of adults identify themselves as Christian. In comparison, the next largest religions in America are Islam and Judaism. Combined they represent only about one to two percent of the United States population.

There are more than 1500 different Christian faith groups in America.

All this and more, because of the sacrifice of the Son of God.
Within the editorial, Jesus, the Perfect Man, published on Christmas Day 1912, C.P.J. Mooney, Editor of the Memphis Commercial Appeal, wrote the following excerpt:

After the experience of 2,000 years no man can find a flaw in the governmental system outlined by Jesus.

Czar and kaiser, president and Socialist, give to its complete merit their admiration.

No man today, no matter whether he follows the doctrine of Mill, Marx or George as to property, can find a false principle in Jesus’ theory of property.

In the duty of a man to his fellow no sociologist has ever approximated the perfection of the doctrine laid down by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

Not all the investigations of chemists, not all the discoveries of explorers, not all the experiences of rulers, not all the historical facts that go to make up the sum of human knowledge on this day in 1912 are in contradiction to one word uttered or one principle laid down by Jesus.

The human experiences of 2,000 years show that Jesus never made a mistake. Jesus never uttered a doctrine that was true at that time and then became obsolete.

Jesus spoke the truth, and the truth is eternal.

History has no record of any other man leading a perfect life or doing everything in logical order. Jesus is the only person whose every action and whose every utterance strike a true note in the heart and mind of every man born of woman. He never said a foolish thing, never did a foolish act and never dissembled.

No poet, no dreamer, no philosopher loved humanity with all the love that Jesus bore toward all men.

WHO, THEN, was Jesus?

He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.

Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be — a divine being — or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave the world as a heritage.

He is risen indeed!

Romney and Those Darned Christians

On March 27th, 2012, gallup.com released the following lists of the 10 Most Religious and Least Religious states in America. Most Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011 Least Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011

As of the writing of this blog, Mitt Romney has come in First Place in the following states’ Republican Primaries: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.

The only state that Romney will possibly win among the Most Religious List is Utah.  Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but, the only reason he will carry that state, is the fact that he is a Mormon. (Yeah, I said it.)

The Pew Research Center released some interesting information last month.

A poll by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life has found that nearly 60% of Romney supporters believe that churches should step back from political and social issues, while 60% of Santorum supporters believe churches should play a more active role. These sentiments were echoed by another sharp divide found between the candidates’ supporters regarding their views on whether there’s too little expression of religious faith by political leaders. For Romney’s camp, there’s little concern, with 24% agreeing that there’s not enough religious discourse. But 55% of Santorum supporters see a deficit in religious speech by politicians. As for the nation on a whole, the poll unearthed another interesting trend. The largest number of Americans in the poll’s 10-year history believe there is too much expression of religious faith by politicians. In 2010, the last national election year, 37% said there was too little expression compared to 29% saying there was too much. Now, the numbers are nearly reversed, at 30% and 38% respectively. Democrats were found to be nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there’s too much talk of religion by politicians, 46% to 24%. Among white evangelicals, Santorum’s most prominent base of supporters, only 14% thought politicians focused on religion too much. As such, it comes as no surprise that 54% see the Republican Party as being friendly toward religion, compared to 35% for Democrats. The largest divides in the poll were on President Obama’s perceived friendliness to religion. A majority of Republicans, 52%, categorize him as unfriendly, compared to 5% of Democrats, while 15% of Republicans see him as friendly, compared to 59% percent of Democrats. The poll was conducted between March 7-11 with 1,503 individual interviews and has a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

If I’m interpreting this poll correctly, both the majority of Romney supporters and the Majority of Democrats have an aversion to religious values playing a part in the governance of our country. With 78% of Americans, per Gallup, identifying themselves as Christians, this could be a problem for Romney, if he continues on to the nomination.

But, is it his Mormonism or his flip-flipping Political Ideology that has alienated the Conservative Base of the Republican Party?

TheBlaze.com reported the following on March21st:

Following a win in the Illinois GOP primary Tuesday and a key endorsement from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney’s top adviser Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on CNN where he answered questions concerning whether his candidate had gone “so far right” in the primary campaign.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Fehrnstrom said. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

Fehrnstrom’s answer is likely to rehash concerns from many critics within the conservative base and general electorate who have long alleged that Romney is a “flip-flopper“ and has ”no core values.”

The campaign of Romney’s strongest rival Rick Santorum has immediately pounced on the gaffe.

“We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts,” Santorum’s National Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement.

“With the two year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare upon us, can voters really believe that the man who urged the President to use his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a model would really repealObamaCare? Or is that promise just something they would ‘shake up and restart’ with when Romney hits the general election.”

If you have spent any time at all on Conservative Blogs during the Republican Nomination Process, you have seen Mitt Supporters label Christians, especially Evangelicals, as narrow-minded bigots, if they express any concern of the political ideology of Mitt Romney.  These “fans” stand at the ready to identify genuine concerns as anti-Mormon bigotry, where there is none.

The simple fact of the matter is, as Rush Limbaugh himself stated on February 2nd:

There is a Republican primary going on right now, and who votes in a Republican primary?  Starts with a C.  Conservatives.  There are elements of conservatism that are fundamental.  And we conservatives, we have radar.  We know when somebody isn’t.

Additionally, if the Romney supporters knew their Christianity, they would be familiar with the gift of discernment.

What is a Christian American Conservative?

I have been asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong 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 Reagan 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 Reagan 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 issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

From Star Wars to The Hunger Games

The biggest box office hit in America right now is The Hunger Games.  In fact, it is setting records.

Deadline.com has the story:

Lionsgate’s record-shattering The Hunger Games opened with $68.25M grosses for Friday’s North American box office, including $19.75M in record-setting midnights. That should make for a first weekend of $140M with upside from 4,137 locations, with a screen count just under 10,000 prints. About 75% of those prints are in digital theaters, including 268 IMAX theaters across North America. Hunger Games records include: the highest non-sequel opening weekend ever, and the highest debut single day for a non-sequel ever, and the highest March opening ever, and the 5th highest opening day ever. Why is it doing so well? Because this brutal actioner about love and courage was based on Suzanne Collins’ best-selling trilogy of post-apocalyptic young adult novels and made better than it had to be given all the omnipresent marketing and media hype.

Imdb.com summarizes the plot for us:

In a not-too-distant future, North America has collapsed, weakened by drought, fire, famine, and war to be replaced by Panem, a country divided into the Capitol and 12 districts. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal intimidation of the subjugated districts, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors, literally, with all citizens required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss’ young sister, Prim, is selected as the mining district’s female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, will be pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.

But, is this movie appropriate for children?

Commonsensemedia.org cautions parents:

Parents need to know that although the bestselling Hunger Games books are enormously popular with tweens, there’s a clear distinction between reading about violence and seeing it portrayed on screen. Developmentally, the 10- to 12-year-olds who’ve read the book may find the movie’s visceral, sometimes bloody teen-on-teen violence upsetting — especially the brutal scene that opens the Games, in which several teens are slaughtered by their fellow contestants. Even young teens need to be mature enough to deal with the 20+ deaths in The Hunger Games; characters are viciously dispatched with various weapons — including spears, arrows, and swords — as well as by having their necks broken, their skulls cracked, and their bodies ravaged by carnivorous and poisonous creatures. Despite the violence (which is, overall, less graphic than the novel’s descriptions but is still very intense), the movie explores thought-provoking themes about reality television, totalitarian government, and screen violence as entertainment. And Katniss, the main character, is a strong heroine who’s resourceful, selfless, and a true survivor. Her mentor, Haymitch, is initially depicted as a cynical drunk, but he ultimately proves to be a valuable ally.

So, the top box office hit in America features children killing other children?  

How callous have we become?  Okay.  Now, I’m depressed.

Back in my day (Here’s where I sound like my Daddy), we had great movies.  In 1975, we had Airplane!, one of the funniest movies of all time (Excuse me, Stewardess.  I speak Jive.) and Jaws (This was no boating accident!)

And in 1977, I attended the following premiere in the now-long-gone Paramount Theater in Eastgate Shopping Center in Memphis , Tennessee:

Part IV in George Lucas’ epic, Star Wars: A New Hope opens with a Rebel ship being boarded by the tyrannical Darth Vader. The plot then follows the life of a simple farm boy, Luke Skywalker, as he and his newly met allies (Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, C-3PO, R2-D2) attempt to rescue a Rebel leader, Princess Leia, from the clutches of the Empire. The conclusion is culminated as the Rebels, including Skywalker and flying ace Wedge Antilles make an attack on the Empire’s most powerful and ominous weapon, the Death Star.

It was a throwback to the old movie serials I used to watch on my parent’s blonde wood, black and white television set when I was a child.  It was an intergalatic cowboy movie, featuring heroes you cheered for, villains you booed, and good triumphing over evil.

The original Star Wars was an allegory, illuminating the hero in all of us.  Luke Skywalker was an average guy: a dreamer, longing for adventure, not wanting to settle for complacency, who received the opportunity for the adventure of a lifetime, and seized the moment, becoming a hero.

Sure, there was violence, but it was Saturday morning cartoon-style violence, featuring fight scenes such as American boys had already imagined while fighting invisible aliens in their bedrooms.

Nowadays, compared to The Hunger Games, it almost seems naive in its optimistic good spirits.

How did we get this coarse and brutal?  

Hold on.  Before you call me an old wuss, realize that I grew up watching Memphis ‘Rasslin’ on Saturday Mornings with my Daddy.  Heck, my Daddy and my Uncle “R” even took me to the Mid-South Coliseum, where I watched Jerry “The King” Lawler and Bill “Superstar” Dundee win the AWA World Tag Team Titles from Doug Summers and some huge “Russian”.

Plus, I lived in a neighborhood during my middle school years that was so rough, I had to carry a lead-filled bat around with me, because I was a little feller (and there was no government-mandated anti-bullying drive in the schools back then).

Anyway, I guess I’m just concerned that popular culture is forcing children to grow up too fast.  Middle school kids (‘tweens) are way beyond where we were, in terms of their social development.

And now, Hollyweird has them fighting to the death on a tarnished Silver screen.

And, they call this progress?

The War on Christianity: The Long and Winding Road

If you listen to the message-bringers of Popular Culture, you would think that Christianity in America is on its last legs.  Hardly.

Here’s an example of the kind of story that has lead to that false dynamic, followed up by, as the late, great Paul Harvey used to say, “the rest of the story”:

Baynews9.com has the story.

Atheists in Polk County symbolically scrubbed away at a major highway leading into the county Saturday.

The were removing a blessing placed there a year ago by a group of religious leaders.

Brooms, mops and water hoses in hand, the atheists gathered at the roadside.

“We come in peace .. now that’s normally what aliens say when they visit a new planet, but we’re not aliens, we’re atheists!” Humanists of Florida director Mark Palmer shouted to the group along Highway 98.

Representatives from various atheist groups in the area scrubbed the road at the Pasco-Polk county line. They were figuratively removing holy oil that had been put on the road last year by a group of area religious leaders. That group was Polk Under Prayer, or PUP.

PUP director Richard Geringswald said his group had been blessing the county line.

“And praying for that entryway in to the city, that God would protect us from evildoers, mainly the drug crowd, that they would be dissuaded to come in to the county,” Geringswald said.

But Humanists of Florida members don’t see it that way. They say it makes them feel unwelcome.

“It sends a very bad signal to everyone in Polk County, and (anyone) who travels through Polk county who doesn’t happen to be Christian,” Palmer said, “This event is not about atheist rights; this is about welcoming everybody into Polk county.”

So they took their “unholy water” and washed the road.

It’s been an ongoing feud between the groups in the county: the atheists are also unhappy with prayer bricks PUP members buried along I-4 and various other roadway leading in to the county, engraved with Psalm 37.

“For the wicked shall be destroyed, but those who trust the Lord shall be given every blessing,” Geringswald said, reading the psalm from his Bible.

Geringswald said PUP is trying to do something positive – to keep crime out and encourage faith. He says they also plan to run TV ads later this year that will say they are trying to send a positive message about criminals turning their lives around.

The humanists say they don’t plan on stopping their protests any time soon.

That’s all well and good, but they still only represent 8% of our nation’s population.

Last June, Gallup reported the following:

More than 9 in 10 Americans still say “yes” when asked the basic question “Do you believe in God?”; this is down only slightly from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question.

Despite the many changes that have rippled through American society over the last 6 ½ decades, belief in God as measured in this direct way has remained high and relatively stable. Gallup initially used this question wording in November 1944, when 96% said “yes.” That percentage dropped to 94% in 1947, but increased to 98% in several Gallup surveys conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Gallup stopped using this question format in the 1960s, before including it again in Gallup’s May 5-8 survey this year.

In 1976, Gallup began using a slightly different question format to measure belief in a deity — “Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?” — and found that 94% of Americans agreed. That percentage stayed fairly steady through 1994, and is at 91% in the May 2011 survey.

78% of Americans still identify themselves as Christians, per Gallup.  This is not only a choice of faith, it’s an American Legacy.

Which Creator do you think that our Founding Fathers were writing about?

Atheists tend to use President Thomas Jefferson as their “poster boy” to back up a lot of their shallow arguments.  What they don’t know or won’t say, will hurt them.  For instance, did you know that

Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes;

In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”

When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

Jefferson praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services;

Jefferson assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”;

Jefferson proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto;
While President, Jefferson closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.”

Jefferson believed that every individual should pray according to his own beliefs. As Jefferson himself, explained:

[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support. (emphasis added)

Atheist Activists will probably lose their minds over reading that President Jefferson said that:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

And, when Atheists aren’t erroneously quoting Jefferson, they’re bringing up President James Madison, who also encouraged public officials to declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony. In fact, in a letter he wrote to William Bradford (who became Attorney General under President George Washington), he declared that:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

In conclusion, Americans’ Christianity is a Legacy passed down from our Founding Fathers, continuing from generation to generation.

And to the Polk County, Florida Atheists, who made a big show out of “unblessing” a highway:

It was a lot of “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.  

Give it up, y’all.  You can’t “unbless” anything.  It’s above your pay grade.

The War Against Christianity: Operation “Women’s Health”

As has been the S.O.P. of the Obama Dictatorship…errr…Presidency, Director of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, under the orders of her boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, (mm mmm mmmm), issued as Friday Night Document Dump, announcing their plans to go forward with making Religious Medical Organizations offer contraceptives and abortiafacients, even if it violates the tenants of their faith.

That’s not all.  Now, the administration of a man who attended a Black Liberation Theology Church, sitting under the teachings of a former Black Muslim  for 20 years, is going to decide what is or is not a “Religion Organization”.

Here is part of the advance PDF of the report:

On February 10, 2012, the Departments also announced their intention to provide an accommodation with respect to non-exempt, non-profit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage. The final regulation concerning student health insurance plans, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, states that this intention extends to student health insurance plans arranged by non-profit religious institutions of higher education with such objections. This accommodation would apply to some or all organizations that qualify for the temporary enforcement safe harbor, and possibly to additional organizations. Thus, a question for purposes of the intended regulations is: What entities should be eligible for the new accommodation (that is, what is a “religious organization”)?

One approach would be to adopt the definition of religious organization used in another statute or regulation. For example, the definition used in one or more State laws to afford a religious exemption from a contraceptive coverage requirement could be adopted. Alternatively, the intended regulations could base their definition on another Federal law, such as section 414(e) the Code and section 3(33) of ERISA, which set forth definitions for purposes of “church plans.”

A definition based on these provisions may include organizations such as hospitals, universities, and charities that are exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Code and that are controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches. In developing a definition of religious organization, we are cognizant of the important role of ministries of churches and, as such, seek to accommodate their religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

The Departments seek comment on which religious organizations should be eligible for the accommodation and whether, as some religious stakeholders have suggested, for-profit religious employers with such objections should be considered as well.

The Departments underscore, as we did with respect to the definition of religious employer in the final regulations, that whatever definition of religious organization is adopted will not be applied with respect to any other provision of the PHS Act, ERISA, or the Code, nor is it intended to set a precedent for any other purpose. And, while the participants and beneficiaries covered under the health plans offered by a “religious employer” compared to those covered under the health plans offered by a “religious organization” will have differential access to contraceptive coverage, nothing in the final regulations or the forthcoming regulations is intended to differentiate among the religious merits, commitment, mission, or public or private standing of the organizations themselves. 

Regardless of the definition of religious organization that is proposed, the Departments are considering proposing the same or a similar process for self-certification that will be used for the temporary enforcement safe harbor referenced in the final regulations.

Under that process, an individual authorized by the organization certifies that the organization satisfies the eligibility criteria, and the self-certification is made available for examination. The Departments expect that, for purposes of the proposed accommodation, religious organizations would make a similar self-certification, and similarly make the self-certification available for examination. The self-certification would be used to put the independent entity responsible for providing contraceptive coverage on notice that the religious organization has invoked the accommodation. The future rulemaking would require that the independent entity be responsible for providing the contraceptive coverage in this case.

By the way, what sort of “downtrodden” lifestyle was the “Poster Child” for “Women’s Health” doing she appeared before Congress wanting us to pay for her $3,000 worth of contraception expenses per year?

She and her boyfriend Fluke and her boyfriend, Adam “Cutie Pants” Mutterperl recently traveled to Spain and Italy together.

The 30 year old women’s rights activist and her rich socialist boyfriend were photographed while drunk in the streets over there.

Adam is a proud boyfriend. He tweeted the following recently:

Rush Limbaugh just called my girlfriend a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his show! She’s finally made the big time!

Adam’s rich Daddy, Bill, is a huge Democratic Donor and Operative.

So, just like the cause she’s advocating, Fluke’s real agenda is hidden from the American public.

What in the world gives the Obama Administration the right to decide what is a “religious organization”?  Especially, after the President, himself, attended a “church” for 20 years that views Jesus Christ as a revolutionary along the lines of the murderer, Che Guevara.  

This is not about “Women’s Health”.  This is about facilitating the cradle-to-grave control of our lives by “The State”…and the callous stopping of helpless beating hearts.

Mississippi/Alabama: Obama’s a Muslim

As I sat here this morning, contemplating my vote later today in the Mississippi Republican Primary, a story being covered on Talk Memphis, the Morning Drive Radio Program on WKIM 98.9, caught my attention.

Publicpolicypolling.com has the story:

There’s considerable skepticism about Barack Obama’s religion with Republican voters in them. In Mississippi only 12% of voters think Obama’s a Christian to 52% who think he’s a Muslim and 36% who are not sure. In Alabama just 14% think Obama’s a Christian to 45% who think he’s a Muslim and 41% who aren’t sure.

So, why do all these hard-working folks believe that President Barack Hussein Obama is, in fact, a Muslim?

For 20 years, Obama sat under the teachings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ .  Let’s look at the background of Rev. Wright, courtesy of freerepublic.com, shall we?

What most people do not know is that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was a Muslim and a Black Activist before he became the founding pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, a Black Liberation Theology Church.

The rest, you already know.  As a reminder, though, Discoverthenetworks.org gives us the following summation of  Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

  • Longtime pastor and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama
  • Considers the U.S. to be a nation rife with racism and discrimination
  • Blames American racism for provoking the 9/11 attacks
  • “Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize,” he has written. “Islam comes out of Christianity.”
  • Embraces liberation theology and socialism
  • Strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan
  • Likens Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era

But, what is Black Liberation Theology?

Again, discoverthenetworks.org gives us the lowdown:

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

Matthew 7:16 tells us,

You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

In his book, Audacity of Hope, written by Bomber Bill Ayers, Obama said:

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

On August 13, 2010, at the annual Ramadan Iftar Dinner, Obama said:

Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

On April 15, 2010, it was reported on Mediaite.com that:

The Obama Administration canceled the White House service to observe the National Day of Prayer, causing a big stir among those who may be looking for reasons or examples to question the President’s faith. It turns out that the President did not cancel the actual day, but rather the ecumenical service, a tradition that only started under the previous administration.

Writing for the LA Times, Johanna Neuman reports:

On the first Thursday of May, dedicated as the National Day of Prayer, President George W. Bush hosted an ecumenical service in the East Room, a big public endorsement of evangelical Christians. (This event is different from the National Prayer Breakfast, held outside the White House gates every year on the first Thursday of February.)President Obama opted not to have a service in the White House this year.“Prayer is something that the president does every day,” explained White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, adding that Obama will sign a proclamation to recognize the day. “I think the president understands, in his own life and in his family’s life, the role that prayer plays.”

That’s great.  However, the question remains for a lot of Americans, and not just those in Mississippi and Alabama, to Whom is he praying?