Rick Santorum a Conservative?

Pastor, Who Are You Voting For?

By Dallas Henry

Have you been asked the question yet? The questions are coming from members of the church I serve. “Pastor, who are you voting for?” Of course, by law, we are not permitted to endorse candidates from the pulpit, but when people ask us, we can legally share our opinions with them and why we have them.

There was a talk show that included a discussion of candidates for president and their faith. The host remarked, “What a person believes really shouldn’t matter because religion and politics don’t mix.”

That is a well known phrase. In any group of people there will be varying political opinions, but it incorrect to say that religion and politics do not mix. In fact, the Bible addresses many political issues. Government was an issue that Biblical writers frequently addressed. Scriptures talk about the role of government, how we should respond to government and, in besides, much of our laws are taken from the Bible. It is fair to say that Christians should be concerned about politics because God seems to be concerned about politics. I Peter 2:13 tells us that we are to submit to the governing authorities and I Timothy 2:1 urges us to pray for those who lead us. Saying that religion and politics do not mix is often an excuse for people who are not involved. It’s interesting that it is okay to sing patriotic hymns in church and politics and religion can mix on that realm, but they cannot mix when we talk about elections and the issues.

It is vital that Christians be involved in the process. We should be concerned about all elections. We should be concerned about who is leading us because they decide what freedoms we have and don’t have and what rights we have and don’t have. But, just how do Christians interact with government? What does the Bible say about issues that relate to this? In this critical time in the history of our country, it is important to be informed and to see what our Biblical responsibility is with government and not to simply withdraw and avoid it all. Remember government is; “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

All citizens have been given the freedom and the responsibility to vote. This freedom is our only chance to voice our opinion. We are all influenced to vote the way that we do for different reasons, but Christians, especially, must guard against the false notion that voting and religion do not mix. A Christian’s faith does come into play in the decision making while voting.

It is important to remember that God, His Word and His Son Jesus Christ are foundational parts of our government and that should never be forgotten. There’s a good reason that In God We Trust is on our currency and a good reason our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “One nation Under God” and there is a good reason that The Declaration of Independence speaks of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and of certain unalienable Rights endowed on them by their Creator. We hear a lot today about the separation of Church and state, which is not in our constitution, no matter who many claim that it is.

In a few months the primaries will be over and the various candidates for each political party will have been chosen, on the national, state and local levels. The campaign ads will be over, the commercials will stop airing, for the time being, and then it’s time for Christians to do their homework.

It is important for us to take time and look into the Scriptures and see, first of all, what the Bible has to say regarding the purpose of government, secondly our responsibility as Christians, and thirdly how the church is called to Biblically interact with government.

Romans 13:1-7
“Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God. So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves. For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good, and you shall have praise from it. For it is a servant of God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for wrath on him who does evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes. For they are God’s servants, always giving attention to this very thing. Therefore give to all their dues; to the one due tax, the tax; tribute to whom tribute is due, fear to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due.”

Christians should not have an anti-government mindset because God has established governments that exist. God had a reason for appointing government.

Making Sense of School Shootings

By John W. Whitehead

On Feb. 27, 2012, a teenager—reportedly a victim of bullying and something of a social outcast—walked into a Cleveland high school and opened fire in the cafeteria, killing two students and wounding three others. The teenager, identified as T.J. Lane, has been taken into police custody. Now media pundits are speculating on who or what is to blame for this latest spate of violence.

Yet we’ve been caught in the grip of a cycle of school violence that started almost 20 years ago. It was February 1997 when a 16-year-old Alaskan boy pulled out a shotgun and killed his principal and another student. Two years later, on April 20, 1999, two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, opened fire on classmates and teachers at Columbine High School, killing 12 students and one teacher and leaving 24 others wounded.

Then, on October 10, 2006, a 13-year-old seventh grade boy, apparently fascinated with the 1999 Columbine High School bloodbath, carried an assault rifle into his Joplin, Missouri middle school. Dressed in a dark green trench coat and wearing a mask, he pointed the rifle at fellow students and fired a shot into the ceiling before the weapon jammed. This was no spur-of-the-moment act. It was a planned attack. The student’s backpack contained military manuals, instructions on assembling an improvised explosive device and detailed drawings of the school.

The outbreak of school shootings that have taken place over the past two decades have forced school officials, public leaders and parents to search for ways to prevent further bloodshed. In their attempts to make the schools safer, students have been forced to deal with draconian zero tolerance policies, heightened security, routine locker checks, guard dogs, metal detectors and numerous other invasions of their property and privacy.

Despite the precautions (all of which have proven to be altogether ineffective), other student-led shooting sprees and bloodshed followed, culminating with the most recent incident. To be sure, the instinctive response to this latest school shooting will be to appease parents by adopting measures that provide the appearance of increased security. However, enacting tighter zero tolerance policies and installing more metal detectors in the schools will do little to advance the dialogue on why such shootings happen in the first place.

One thing is clear: there are no easy solutions.

In struggling to understand the teenage mind—and find some motivation for the rash of school shootings of the past several years—public leaders have targeted everything from the negative influence of movies to music to violent video games. Now the scapegoat seems to be bullying and peer pressure.

Evidently, something more sinister than disgruntled students is at work here. While there are conditions—such as peer pressure, low self-esteem, childhood abuse, etc.—that can trigger or facilitate violent behavior, we’re facing a crisis that goes much deeper, one that has as much to do with a lack of spirituality and morality as it does with education, relationships and culture.

Young people have unfortunately become the casualties of our age. They know that something is dreadfully wrong, but many adults, busy trying to make ends meet and keep pace with the demands of work and raising a family, often do not hear when the kids scream for help. For example, at least one in 10 young people now believe life is not worth living. A 2009 survey of 16- to 25-year-olds by the Prince’s Trust found “a significant core” for whom life had little or no purpose, especially among those not in school, work or training. More than a quarter of those polled felt depressed and were less happy than when they were younger. And almost “half said they were regularly stressed and many did not have anything to look forward to or someone they could talk to about their problems.”

Indeed, our young people are members of a lost generation—raised in a world where life has little to no value, the almighty dollar takes precedence and values are taught by primetime sitcoms and Saturday morning cartoons. They are being raised by television and the Internet and nourished on fast food. They are seeking comfort wherever they can find it—in sex, drugs, music, each other. They are searching for hope and finding few answers to their questions about the meaning of life.

Gone is the innocence of childhood. In a multitude of ways, children have been adultified, and their childhood is disappearing. Today’s young people often know more about sex, drugs and violence than their adult counterparts. By the year 2000, 25 percent of U.S. teens were involved with weapons; 70 percent admitted cheating on tests in school; more than 15 percent had shown up for class drunk; and five million children—including three-year-olds—were regularly left home alone to care for themselves. As University of Edinburgh professor Stuart Aitken writes, “In short, the sense of a so-called disappearance of childhood is, in actuality, about the loss of a stable, seemingly natural foundation for social life that is clearly linked not only to laments over the lost innocence of childhood, but also a growing anger at and fear of young people.”

No wonder life seems so meaningless to so many. Wherever these young people turn, life is chaotic—wars, violence, environmental crises, oil depletion and terrorism, to name a few. Children are confronted on a daily basis with issues, images and material of all sorts—abortion, drugs, alcohol, pornography—and preyed upon by sexual predators, marketing mavens, even the government. Although teenagers can cope with a number of emotional hazards, with each additional hazard introduced, their resilience—like soldiers in combat too long—diminishes to such an extent that breakdowns are imminent. As Cornell University professor James Gabarino recognizes, one of the key factors leading to violence is a “spiritual emptiness” that brings on a feeling of not being connected to anything, of having no limits for behavior and no reverence for life.

Is anyone listening?

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Navy Sued For Records Aimed at Exposing Deception of Congress Over Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose mission includes restoring America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promoting a strong national defense, announced Tuesday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of the Navy. The lawsuit seeks to obtain records that the plaintiffs believe will show intentional deception by the Pentagon to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Prompting the lawsuit was a Department of Defense Inspector General’s report which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality in the military (Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).

Erin E. Mersino, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, explained the reason for the lawsuit, “The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Plaintiffs Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). Plaintiffs are seeking information to determine the extent to which the Department of the Navy engaged in a campaign of deception as suggested by the Inspector General’s Report.

The Plaintiffs are also seeking the information to determine the extent to which the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy fulfilled the requirements mandated by Congress for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to become valid law. Congress required specific regulations and procedures be implemented to protect national security prior to the repeal taking effect. [See lawsuit here]

CMR is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that concentrates on military issues. CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, has done extensive reporting on and analysis of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and the consequences of repealing that law.

Plaintiffs first submitted their FOIA requests on August 31, 2011 requesting all records, documents and e-mails concerning the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shared among the military Chiefs of Staff, various combatant commanders, and political appointees at the Pentagon and White House. To date, the Department of the Navy has failed to provide any of the requested documents.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented, “ Ever since the beginning of the Continental Army of 1775, homosexuality in the military has been prohibited. President Obama changed all that at the expense of our future national security merely to curry favor with his radical homosexual supporters, and Congress went along with him. The purpose of our Armed Forces is to win on the field of battle. This new law will eventually have a devastating impact on unit cohesion and the fighting effectiveness of our combat branches. That’s why we must undo this ill conceived law, and the first step is to discover what went on behind the scenes.”

Contrary to media headlines based on selective misleading leaks about the survey, the actual survey numbers show that nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units, and among Marine combat arms the number was 67%, thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.

Concerns of Senior Military Leaders Disregarded

During 2010 hearings prior to the rushed lame-duck vote for repeal, both the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway, and the incoming Commandant, General James Amos, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.

However, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific Command, was publicly reprimanded by both Gates and Mullen for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.

To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.

An Anti-Christian Policy

Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian, the Pentagon brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. The Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery to go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Moreover, recognizing that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Pentagon claimed that their objections, based upon deeply held religious beliefs, could be overcome through education and training. Ongoing controversies about the Defense Department’s attempts to circumvent the Defense of Marriage Act by authorizing same-sex “ceremonies,” which are simulated marriages on military bases, remain unresolved. Documents obtained by this FOIA lawsuit will improve public understanding of what happened during the lame-duck Congress in 2010, and what must be done to repair the damage.

Anatomy of a Smear: ‘The Third Jihad’ Fights Back

You have to watch the Third Jihad video to understand difference between moderate and radical Islam. If you watch the video, remember the scene of Muslim celebrating Islam Day and Jasser’s comment about it.

Dedicated to American Troops, Video by Endorse Liberty

For more info about Endorse Liberty, go to www.endorseliberty.com.

Obama’s Budget: Ignoring the 500-Pound Entitlement in the Room

By Cameron Smith

When President Obama released his budget for fiscal year 2013, the political reactions were swift … and predictable. Republicans immediately branded the budget “Debt on Arrival,” Nancy Pelosi called the President’s budget “a fiscally responsible plan,” and Harry Reid dodged the budget entirely, opting instead to talk about the need for transportation spending.

While the President is touting more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction, Republicans see as little as a $300 billion difference between Obama’s proposals and the consequences for the national debt if Congress does nothing but continue current policies. Regardless of how much deficit reduction actually takes place, the President’s “best case” scenario calls for $6.7 trillion in additional debt over the next decade.

Jack Lew, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, set the tone for the President’s budget by suggesting that “[t]here’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today.” That sounds better than telling America that President Obama has proposed the largest budget in American history at a time of record national debt.

To make matters worse, the President is relying on an overly optimistic economic output to limit his requested deficit to “just” $901 billion for fiscal year 2013. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects real gross domestic product (GDP), an inflation-adjusted measure of America’s economic output, to increase year to year by just one percent for fiscal year 2013. President Obama’s budget assumes three times that amount of growth.

Why do the President’s projections about the performance of the American economy matter? Estimates of income taxes and social insurance taxes hinge entirely on how the economy actually performs. When GDP growth is lower than projected, tax receipts are often proportionally lower, increasing the amount of the deficit.

The cavalcade of press releases, news conferences, and political punditry serve only to mask the harsh reality buried in the pages of the President’s budget. First of all, entitlements are at the heart of America’s budgetary problems. Period. Politicians address earmarks, tax increases, foreign aid, welfare programs and a host of other topics before the heaviest line item on the budget-entitlements-is ever mentioned.

In truth, the vast majority of Republican and Democrats in Washington would sooner play egg toss with a hand grenade than talk seriously about entitlement reform. And there is apparently little political advantage in doing so.

According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2011, Americans have a split personality when confronted with the realities regarding entitlements. Sixty percent of respondents said maintaining current benefits under Social Security was more important than reducing the federal budget deficit. However 52 percent said Social Security needed major changes or to be completely rebuilt.

The President’s budget clearly demonstrates the impact of mandatory programs on America’s spending.

President Obama’s budget calls for $2.3 trillion in mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Add to that $851 billion in security spending which includes programs such as Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, and $248 billion in interest payments and those items account for 117 percent of the revenues coming in to pay for all of the federal government. Even if the President raises taxes exactly as he wants, mandatory and security spending alone will automatically cause America to deficit spend.

Maintaining the status quo for mandatory spending not only has serious consequences for America’s budgets, but also leaves the programs themselves in jeopardy. The Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees Report for 2011 states clearly that, after 2036, “tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.” The same report also notes that general fund revenues rather than Medicare payroll taxes “accounted for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays” in fiscal year 2010.

The President’s budget continues the unfortunate trend of Presidential budgets that read more like a child’s Christmas list than a good faith effort for America to live within its means. Unfortunately, neither end of the political spectrum has shown leadership in dealing with America’s budgetary challenges. The President has clearly developed a budget aimed at improving his prospects with his political base, and Republicans, concerned with the reaction of senior citizens, remain conspicuously silent on ways to deal with entitlements, the most glaring economic burdens in the budget.

In this election year, political courage is in short supply on both sides of the aisle when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Policy Director for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.