The War Against Christianity: Liberals Step Up Efforts to Control What is Said From the Pulpit

American Christianity 2In the last few years, during the Obama Administration, there has been a concerted effort by American Liberals to enforce the fallacy known as “The Separation of Church and State”.

Those behind this fascist initiative are so adamant about it, that they are trying to limit what American Christian Leaders can say from the pulpit, a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

If  the “Smartest People in the Room” thought that Men of God would acquiesce to their edicts, they gravely overestimated their own authority, as The Blaze.com reports

After a church-state watchdog sent out 84,000 letters urging faith leaders and churches, alike, to be mindful of IRS restrictions that govern political activity, the organization claims it received dozens of fiery responses from religious leaders who were less than content with the group’s warning.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced earlier this month that it had recently sent the letter to houses of worship and sectarian leaders across the nation, warning in the text against endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

“We merely want houses of worship to follow the rules, stay out of partisan politics and keep their tax exemption,” Simon Brown, the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a blog post. “And when we explain to clergy what the law requires, we do so in a respectful way.”

But Brown said that some of the recipients didn’t appreciate the reminder, as numerous faith leaders opted to send the letters back along with some fiery messages expressing their dissatisfaction; others called or emailed Americans United with similar sentiment.

A representative for the organization told TheBlaze Thursday that 45 angry responses have already come flooding in and that more are expected in the coming days.

Among the surprising mix of messages came a fiery letter addressed to the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, from a man described as a Catholic priest.

It read, in part, “As for your solicitude regarding our legal well-being, I ask that you shove it up your fat white a–.”

Another unnamed religious leader wrote the words “drop dead” on the document before sending it back.

Others wrote messages telling Americans United that they have no plans to comply with the organization’s reminder to follow tax law.

One faith leader took to his red marker to write, “Come and get me; I DARE YOU!”

There was also another faith leader who simply tore the letter up into tiny pieces and sent it back to the organization with no accompanying message.

It’s clear from the responses that some faith leaders clearly oppose the IRS regulations that come along with their tax-exempt status, though contention surrounding these legal parameters is nothing new.

At the center of the debate over church politicking is the Johnson Amendment, a controversial IRS code added in 1954 that precludes nonprofit organizations — churches included — from engaging in campaign activity.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist activist group and Americans United, among others, have long clashed with conservative groups over the issue of church politicking, with the right-leaning legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom organizing the annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” event.

The initiative, which last unfolded October 5, encourages pastors “to reclaim their right to speak freely from the pulpit by preaching an election-related sermon” — an act that flies in the face of the letter that Americans United sent to preachers.

Have you ever wondered where the expression “separation of church and state” came from?

David Barton, writing at wallbuilders.com, presents the following explanation:

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

…Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Liberals wish to silence the voices and sublimate the rights of Christian Americans, who actually constitute  76% of America’s population, per Gallup.

And, as the systematic overturning of the will of the American People concerning Homosexual Marriage through government-backed Judicial Activism has shown us, they will eliminate the Christian Viewpoint from America’s Political Arena, by any means necessary.

That is why it is so important for Americans to vote this coming Tuesday.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. – Edmund Burke

Now, as I sit back and wait for the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth, allow me to leave you with this thought:

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

– Richmond v. Moore, (Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Houston Mayor Withdraws Subpoenas of Pastors’ Sermons

American Christianity 2A rebuke of Biblical proportions happened in Houston, Texas, yesterday.

The Christian Post reports that

Houston Mayor Annise Parker has announced that she will withdraw the subpoenas against five pastors who have spoken out against the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, an LGBT city ordinance that some opponents claim would allow men to use women’s public restrooms.

“After much contemplation and discussion, I am directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort,” Parker said during Wednesday’s press conference.

“It is extremely important to me to protect our equal rights ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged,” added Parker, who’s the city’s first openly-gay mayor.

Earlier this month it was revealed that the city of Houston had subpoenaed five pastors regarding a rejected referendum about a recently passed LGBT city ordinance, known by the acronym, HERO.

HERO amended Houston’s Code of Ordinances, prohibiting discrimination in public facilities and private employment on the basis of “protected characteristics.”

This list of protected characteristics included race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sex, familial and marital status, military status, disability, religion, genetic information, pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Opponents of HERO claim it will have several unintended consequences, such as allowing transgender men to use women’s restrooms.

Critics turned in a petition to get the ordinance repealed or put on the ballot, which Houston’s city attorney rejected. In response, conservatives filed suit.

Five Houston pastors whom city officials believed opposed the ordinance were told they had to turn over all sermons they had preached regarding homosexuality, HERO, and about the mayor, who is a practicing lesbian.

The subpoenas garnered nationwide criticism from liberal and conservative organizations alike, with Parker initially narrowing the scope of the subpoenas to include “speeches” rather than “sermons.”

Parker’s decision to drop the subpoenas came days in advance of the “I Stand Sunday,” event in which multiple conservative groups, along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the Benham brothers, and members of the “Duck Dynasty” cast united for a 90-minute simulcast in solidarity with the five pastors.

Hours before the Mayor’s change of heart was announced, Fox News Insider reported that

In a fiery commentary on Mayor Annise Parker’s actions, Mike Huckabee called for American pastors to show their opposition by sending her their sermons and a Bible.

“So, I’ve got an idea – if she wants some sermons, here’s my suggestion. I’d like to ask every pastor in America, not just the ones in Houston, send her your sermons. Obviously, she could use a few. So, if you’re a pastor, send them to her. And here’s another thought, everybody watching the show ought to send her a Bible. That’s right, everybody. I hope she gets thousands and thousands of sermons and Bibles,” said the former governor on Oct. 20. 

Well, now the mayor’s office has said that it has gotten between 500-1,000 Bibles and that they will be distributed to churches.

I wonder if this tremendous backlash had anything to do with the Mayor’s stopping the subpoenas.

Could be.

This attempt by the Houston Mayor to control what the pastors in her city said from the pulpit is a direct attack on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Let’s review the First Amendment, shall we?

The First Amendment (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The following are quotes by famous Americans about this American Right:

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. – George Washington

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. – Mark Twain

I live in America. I have the right to write whatever I want. And it’s equaled by another right just as powerful: the right not to read it. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people. – Brad Thor

I begin to feel like most Americans don’t understand the First Amendment, don’t understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don’t understand that it’s the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. – Roger Ebert

We don’t have an Official Secrets Act in the United States, as other countries do. Under the First Amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are more important than protecting secrets. – Alan Dershowitz

Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality, which exists in all parts of the world, unfortunately. – Lawrence Ferlinghetti

If Her Honor…err…His Honor…err…umm…whatever…thought that Houston’s Men of God were just going to meekly hand over their Sermon Notes, foregoing their Ordination as Preachers of God’s Word and simultaneously giving up their First Amendment Rights, she overestimated her position of authority greatly.

The Houston Pastors answer to Someone with a higher pay grade.

She was outranked all along.

…and, outnumbered.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: No “Bless You(s)” Allowed

American Christianity 2If you spend any time on Political Websites and Facebook Pages, you will notice that Liberals, who often claim to be “the smartest people in the room”, accuse us Conservatives of not being “independent thinkers”, who blindly follow “our leaders”. When pressed to define who “our leaders” are, they usually weakly fire back “Rush Limbaugh”, who is in fact not a Political Leader, simply the nation’s most popular Conservative Talk Show Host.

Some Liberal Professors from the University of Winnipeg recently performed a study, which disproved their previously-held views of this Liberal Mythology.

The study, “Political Conservatives’ Affinity for Obedience to Authority Is Loyal, Not Blind,” is published in the September issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , and posted at Christianpost.com.

Neither liberals nor conservatives are more or less likely to demonstrate blind obedience to authority, a new study finds. One of the authors of the study wrote that he used to believe that conservatives suffered from blind obedience while liberals were open minded.

Jeremy Frimer, professor of psychology at the University of Winnipeg, believed that the source of conservative political views was “slavish obedience to authority and tradition,” he wrote in a Thursday op-ed for The Huffington Post.

“If only conservatives would think for themselves — like liberals do — the war would be over and we could get on with life, governance, and progress. Or so I thought,” he recalled.

Those views began to change, however, on a trip to Cuba in 2012. In a conversation with a Brazilian couple touring the many shrines to famed Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara on the island, Frimer discovered that even questioning why there should be so many shrines was considered offensive.

Frimer also recalled a conversation with a liberal schoolteacher who believed it was important for his students to become “dedicated liberals,” and a conservation with a liberal aid worker who would have preferred living under a liberal dictatorship to living under a democratically elected conservative government.

Previous studies showing conservatives are more likely to show blind allegiance to authority figures only used examples of figures that most would consider conservative, such as a police officer or religious authority, Frimer noted. But what if, he thought, these experiments included authority figures that liberals look up to?

So in his experiment, Frimer, along with fellow University of Winnipeg researchers Dr. Danielle Gaucher and Nicola Schaefer, asked respondents about their obedience to liberal authority figures as well, such as environmentalists. They found that liberals showed more obedience to liberal authority figures, conservatives showed more obedience to conservative authority figures, and when the authority figure was neutral, liberals and conservatives were about the same.

“Rather than thinking of liberals and conservatives as being fundamentally different psychological breeds, I now think of them as competing teams. Liberal versus conservative is like Yankee fans versus Red Socks fans. Each has its own flag to which it pledges allegiance. And each side has its own authorities to which it demands obedience,” he wrote.

Uh huh.

I disagree with those Canadian Professors’ conclusion that neither side is blindly politically-driven.  I believe that there is more politically-driven stifling of Americans’ Constitutional Rights coming from this Administration and their Far Left sycophants that any other time in our nation’s history.

What is happening in American Society today is a divisiveness , unlike any other The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave has ever seen before.

It is a deliberate divisiveness, across political, social, and faith-based lines. I have referred to it in the past as “The New Facism”. An example of it happened earlier this week, right up the road from me in Dyer County, Tennessee. Todd Starnes of Fox News reported that

Kendra Turner was brought up right. She’s the kind of kid who says “yes sir” and “no ma’am.”  She was “raised up right,” with good manners as they are prone to say around Dyersburg, Tennessee.

So it was not out of character for Kendra to say “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed. But that common courtesy landed the 18-year-old in hot water.

Kendra said she was rebuked by her teacher at Dyer County High School and thrown out of class for violating the teacher’s ban on the words “bless you.”

The school would have us believe that a child telling a classmate “bless you” after a sneeze somehow caused a classroom commotion so severe it warranted a punishment? It’s a good thing Kendra didn’t offer her classmate a tissue.  
“She said that we’re not going to have godly speaking in her class and that’s when I said we have a constitutional right,” Turner told Memphis television station WMC.

Another student sent the television station a photo taken inside the teacher’s classroom showing a list of banned words. Among the censored words are “dump,” “stupid,” “my bad,” “hang out” and “bless you.”

She wrote about her incredible story on Facebook. It was then picked up by the MomDot.com blog and then, as they say these days, the story went viral.

“I stood up and said, ‘My pastor said I have a constitutional right – 1st amendment freedom of speech,’” Kendra wrote on Facebook. “She said, ‘Not in my class you don’t.”

Kendra says she was tossed out of the class and sent to the principal’s office where things apparently went from bad to worse.

“The assistant principal said if I didn’t want to respect my teacher’s rules then maybe my pastor should teach me because my freedom (of) speech and religion does not work at their school,” she wrote.

As you might imagine the school has a very different take on what happened inside that classroom.

“We can’t discuss discipline issues because of right to privacy of students,” assistant principal Lynn Garner told the Dyersburg Gazette. “But I can say there are two sides to every story. Sometimes people spin things and turn them to make them seem one way.”

The assistant principal said Kendra was sent to In School Suspension as a matter of protocol. She was allowed to leave at the end of the class period.

“In this case, this was not a religious issue at all, but more of an issue the teacher felt was a distraction in her class,” Garner told the newspaper.

To be clear – the school would have us believe that a child telling a classmate “bless you” after a sneeze somehow caused a classroom commotion so severe it warranted a punishment? It’s a good thing Kendra didn’t offer her classmate a tissue.  

Kendra’s pastor is among those not buying the school’s explanation and he’s taking a public stand in defense of the young girl.

“I believe this young lady,” said Steven Winegardner, the pastor of the Dyersburg First Assembly of God. “Everything she said took place.”

Winegardner told me he’s hoping students will lead a petition drive to force the school to overturn the classroom ban on the words “bless you.”

“Christians have been told to be quiet, to shut up,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. Everybody has a right to their beliefs. I’m glad Kendra stood up.”

Winegardener’s wife told WMC that the teacher had issues with other students using the words “bless you.”

“There were several students that were talking about this particular faculty member there that was very demeaning to them in regard to their faith,” she told the television station.

Every now and then a story will land on my desk that seems too outrageous to be true. And to be certain there are two very different versions of what happened in that classroom.  But I’m prone to believe Kendra, too.

That’s because Tuesday, a school official tried to convince me this young lady was a trouble maker. They were clever with their words – but that was the impression I received.

That same school official told me there was no ban on the words “bless you.” But a classroom photograph proves otherwise.

They said she was not punished. But Kendra’s pastor saw the slip of paper that ordered her to In School Suspension.

For whatever reason, the school will not explain why the teacher has an issue with the words “bless you.”  This one is a head-scratcher, folks. But one thing is clear – religious intolerance is nothing to sneeze at.

Do you remember when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that Conservative Republicans,

Right-to-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

and New York City’s Communist Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, publicly agreed with his remarks?

Imagine if the Governor of the state of Mississippi proclaimed that all Democrats, Liberals, and libertarians, gay or strait “had no place in the state of Mississippi because that’s not who Mississippians are”.

Oh, Lawdy.

Democrat Pundits, and Liberal and small “l” libertarian Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, would have a bigger conniption than that of Michelle Obama, if she were told that she had to pay for her own vacations.

Funny. If “political correctness” does not emanate from the mouths of “the enlighted”, it sounds just like hateful bigotry…doesn’t it?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Thoughts For a Sunday Morning: Why Liberals Who Compare American Christianity To Radical Islam Fail…Miserably

Islam cartoonEven as the  Radical Muslims of ISIS continue their genocidal jihad against Christians in Iraq, I continue to hear and read from some of this “Me, First Generation” that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam. Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between Mister Rogers and Ted Bundy (look them up, children).

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgement on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.

God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.

Obama,having attended school at an Indonesian Madrassa as a child, has been supportive of Muslims in America since his Presidency began.  In a speech he delivered to the Muslim world on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University, Obama said:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”

Time out, Scooter.  US President John Adams  also said:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Now, back to the Cairo Speech.

And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

However, what the Liberal Main Stream Media never reported, and Obama chose to ignore, was the fact that Thomas Jefferson kept a Koran in his library in order to gain a better insight into the way Muslims think, because of the War with the Barbary Pirates.

Obama and his minions are trying desperately to rewrite history , by trying to somehow subliminally imply that Muslims go all the way back in our nation to the Founding Fathers.  That is not the case.

From adherents.com:

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 “slots” or “positions” in these groups which one can classify as “Founding Fathers” of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of “Founding Fathers.” These are the people who did one or more of the following:

– signed the Declaration of Independence
– signed the Articles of Confederation
– attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
– signed the Constitution of the United States of America
– served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
– served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. 

<!–

–>

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
# of
Founding
Fathers
% of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
unknown 43  %
TOTAL 204

Here are some quotes about God and Christianity from 3 Presidents of the United States, whom you might recognize:

John Quincy Adams

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

George Washington

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.

For Liberals to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Liberals Pushing “Moral Equivalency” Between American Christianity and Radical Islam

Islam cartoonRecently, I have heard and read from some of this “Me, First Generation” that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam. Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between an in-ground swimming pool and a garden hose.

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgement on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.

God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.

Obama,having attended school at an Indonesian Madrassa as a child, has been supportive of Muslims in America since his Presidency began.  In a speech he delivered to the Muslim world on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University, Obama said:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.”

Time out, Scooter.  US President John Adams  also said:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Now, back to the Cairo Speech.

And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

However, what the Liberal Main Stream Media never reported, and Obama chose to ignore, was the fact that Thomas Jefferson kept a Koran in his library in order to gain a better insight into the way Muslims think, because of the War with the Barbary Pirates.

Obama and his minions are trying desperately to rewrite history , by trying to somehow subliminally imply that Muslims go all the way back in our nation to the Founding Fathers.  That is not the case.

From adherents.com:

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 “slots” or “positions” in these groups which one can classify as “Founding Fathers” of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of “Founding Fathers.” These are the people who did one or more of the following:

– signed the Declaration of Independence
– signed the Articles of Confederation
– attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
– signed the Constitution of the United States of America
– served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
– served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. 

<!–

–>

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
# of
Founding
Fathers
% of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
unknown 43  %
TOTAL 204

Here are some quotes about God and Christianity from 3 Presidents of the United States whom you might recognize:

John Quincy Adams

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

George Washington

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 78% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

For Liberals to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The War Against Christianity: Obama Vs. The Little Sisters of the Poor

American FreedomWhen I was a child, I was taught by my parents to respect others. Quite frankly, I was raised to be a Southern Gentleman.

Any slip in saying “Yes, ma’am” or “No, sir” was met by a swift correction by my mother.

That same respect went out to everyone, regardless of their religion. I suppose that it was because my folks were members of America’s Greatest Generation, as I have recorded before, who all pulled together in the dark days of the Depression, the terrifying days of Word War II, and the uncertain days of the Cold War, when there was a nuke hidden around every corner.

They had to work hard, and with one another, for everything they had, and, in doing so, they became determined that their children would be raised with American values, principles, and ethics.

A couple of examples that I remember of that “mutual respect”, centered around my Mother. When I was in Second Grade, around 1965, she came down with severe Diabetes. Her doctor was a wonderful, old Jewish gentleman, whom my Mother had worked the Front Desk for.  He made sure that she got the best of care in the hospital, because she was not only his past employee, but his friend, as well.

While I was visiting my Mother in St. Joseph Hospital, in Memphis, TN, in walked this big, Black man, wearing a suit, with a red liturgical shirt and collar. His name was Parker, and he worked the loading dock at the 20 story Sears Building in Midtown Memphis, where my folks worked. He was another friend of their’s.

I remember his big old smile, and soft gentle demeanor, as his huge hands enveloped mine and my Mother’s, as he led us in a prayer for her recovery.

Not to beat a dead horse, but, please remember, this was Memphis, TN, in 1965.

Blows your Southern Stereotypes all to Hades, doesn’t it?

But, I digress…

Anyway, I was sitting at my desk in my office at work yesterday, when a Bing Update flashed across the top of my computer screen that President Barack Hussein Obama, still blowing $4,000,0000 OF OUR MONEY in Hawaii on his Family Vay-cay and his Administration, were urging the Supreme court to ignore Justice Sotomayor’s unexpected temporary injunction, stopping the Administration from forcing Catholic Institutions to provide free Birth Control, including abortiafacients, under Obamacare.

Politico.com summarizes the situation…

On New Year’s Eve, Sotomayor granted the Denver nursing home a last-minute, temporary reprieve from the health care law requirement that health coverage for employees include contraception. She will now have to decide whether to keep the temporary order in place, dissolve it, or take the issue to the other justices, who could decide to review the whole case in the coming months.

Justice Department lawyers in their response Friday said that the Little Sisters for the Poor Home for the Aged uses a Christian health insurer that is recognized as a church under U.S. employment law — and is already exempt from the Affordable Care Act contraception requirement.

“Applicants have no legal basis to … complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage,” government lawyers wrote to the court.“This case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation” under a 1974 labor law that predates the president’s health care law.

The Little Sisters, in their reply to the government’s brief on Friday afternoon, said that signing a piece of paper allowing contraception — even if it doesn’t result in contraception being handed out —is itself a violation of their religious protections. That certification is part of the current legal process for religious non-profits that object to providing the contraception.

No matter which path Sotomayor takes, the central questions on contraception and religious nonprofits could eventually work their way through the legal system and return to the high court through this case or a different one.

The court has already agreed to take two separate challenges to the contraceptive requirement, but they involve religious owners of for-profit businesses, not religious nonprofits like this Denver nursing home. Dozens of religious-affiliated groups, dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s attempts to address their concerns, have petitioned federal courts to eliminate the requirement.

Anything the court does in the Little Sisters case could also affect nearly 500 religious non-profits that work with the Little Sisters and others on the lawsuit.

In all, more than 90 legal challenges have been filed around the country. A Supreme Court decision against the contraceptive rule would undercut but not cripple the health law. The birth control rule is a small piece of the overall law, but it’s been another source of ongoing political controversy for President Barack Obama’s signature law.

The Obama administration argues that employer health plans need to include contraception to ensure that women and their babies are healthy. Opponents of the policy — notably, the Catholic bishops — say that the administration is requiring some businesses to forgo religious beliefs against the use of contraception.

The case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged falls into an unexpected loophole in the ACA’s contraception coverage.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration tried through regulations to accommodate religious-affiliated nonprofits over contraception. It allowed groups like the Little Sisters to tell their insurance company or third-party administrator that they objected on religious grounds. The insurer or administrator would then have to provide contraceptives to the employees at no charge.

The premise was that an insurer or administrator would not have the same objection to providing such products. But the catch here is that the Little Sisters’ administrator — the Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust — is also run by a religious order.

The Christian Brothers, who joined the Little Sisters on the lawsuit, qualify as a church under employment law known as ERISA. And under that law, if they don’t want to provide contraception, the federal government has no recourse to force them to do so.

So, why is the Obama Administration so desperately trying to make Catholic Institutions provide services which are diametrically opposed tho the tenents of their faith?

I believe that it is all about respect for Americans’ Faith.

With this Administration, more so than any Administration which has gone before, the insensitivity and, downright blatant opposition to the role of Christianity in American Everyday Life, has led to the heretofore unthinkable situation of the Department of Justice and the American Court System being used as a bludgeon to keep us “uppity” Christians in line, so that we do not interfere with the plans of a Secular All-powerful State.

Sound familiar?

The Obama Administration’s ongoing war with the Catholic Church over providing these services is just one example of a deliberate movement to isolate Christianity from American’s Everyday Lives and regulate our relationship and following of Jesus Christ to a 2-hour window on Sunday Mornings.

However, try as it may, this Administration may have Pyrrhic Victories, but in the long run, it will not succeed.

Y’see….I know how this thing ends.  I’ve read The Book.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

The War Against Christianity: Of Lenin and Hobby Lobby

americanchristianflagsYesterday, thousands of Americans either went to, or shopped online at Hobby Lobby, a favorite store of my bride and mine, which has come under attack by the Obama Administration, because the owner, David Green, has taken a faith-based stand against being forced by the Obama administration to pay for drugs for his employees in their health care plan that may cause abortions.  Mr. Green recently stated his views very succinctly in the following letter:

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God‘s word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby – and my family – are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that’s a choice no American – and no American business – should have to make.

Sincerely,

David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Now that you’ve heard from a great Christian American, read this excerpt from a paper by the Marxist Leader, Vladimir Lenin, titled “Socialism and Religion”…and shiver:

So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?

The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.

Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.[1]

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various “Christians”. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

Everywhere the reactionary bourgeoisie has concerned itself, and is now beginning to concern itself in Russia, with the fomenting of religious strife—in order thereby to divert the attention of the masses from the really important and fundamental economic and political problems, now being solved in practice by the all-Russian proletariat uniting in revolutionary struggle. This reactionary policy of splitting up the proletarian forces, which today manifests itself mainly in Black-Hundred pogroms, may tomorrow conceive some more subtle forms. We, at any rate, shall oppose it by calmly, consistently and patiently preaching proletarian solidarity and the scientific world-outlook—a preaching alien to any stirring up of secondary differences.

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned. And in this political system, cleansed of medieval mildew, the proletariat will wage a broad and open struggle for the elimination of economic slavery, the true source of the religious humbugging of mankind.

Is the Obama Administration acting unconstitutionally? You betcha.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – Amendment I, The Constitution of the United States

Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. – 1 Peter 2:16 ESV

Until He Comes,

KJ

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.

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.