Friday, May 29, 2009

Homosexual Activists Ramping Up Intimidation Tactics

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
It doesn't seem to matter whether it is an honest answer to a question posed to a Miss USA contestant about her personal belief about marriage, a faith-based organization and their leadership that advocates for traditional marriage, a vote of the people affirming their support of traditional marriage or even an attempt to have a vote of the people on affirming traditional marriage, the homosexual activists are more and more reverting to the use of slander, intimidation, and acts of personal destruction to advance their agenda.

As we prepare to roll out Referendum 71, the ugliness has already begun.

I have been told by state authorities that the homosexual activists are "swarming around" trying to find something wrong with Faith and Freedom. That's fine. We have been audited by the IRS within the past year and found to be in compliance. Our PAC is managed by a highly respected veteran of political action committee management. We have an excellent accounting firm and one of Washington's leading law firms to help us.

Focus on The Family reported yesterday, that a national gay activist group is now accusing the Diocese of Maine of violating IRS rules by collecting signatures to place a marriage-protection amendment on the ballot---much like our own Ref. 71 effort.

Erik Stanley, with the Alliance Defense Fund, told Focus that the church has done nothing wrong. He said, "Under IRS regulations, churches have the right to take a position and advocate in support of a public referendum on traditional marriage."

This group knows this, because a similar complaint they filed against a church in California last year was dismissed as frivolous.


In addition to harassment regarding one's beliefs about marriage, a San Diego television station is reporting that a couple has been ordered by the county to stop home Bible studies. Is this a snapshot of where we are going?

Mike Heath, exec. director of the Maine Family Policy Council told Focus that gay activists, "Are interested in controlling people's speech and going beyond that to control what they believe. Folks in other parts of the country need to understand this will soon be on their doorstep."

This dark, manipulative agenda is not only at the doorstep here, but is crossing the threshold of every family in the state.

This is a time that each of us need to get real with what we really believe about marriage, the future of the family and for Christians, what the Bible actually teaches about homosexual acts.

I strongly recommend the book: "Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage" by Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage: "It's Inevitable"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
REFERENDUM UPDATE: We are hoping to start printing Referendum petitions tomorrow. I will keep you updated. Thank you for your patience and financial support.

Those who gathered at Seattle's Westlake Park Tuesday evening to protest California's Court ruling, which upheld the will of the voters and the ban on same-sex marriage, were described as feeling the sting of defeat and a sense of disappointment by The Seattle Times.

Joe Mirabella, a Washington State community organizer who helped plan the event, told the Times he didn't see the California decision as a set back because of the significant political gains homosexuals have made recently.

He said the tide is turning. And regarding same-sex "marriage," he said, "It's inevitable."


There is a growing consensus in the homosexual community and even among some Christian leaders that it is a sure thing. In fact a Christian leader who had worked with many of us in these cultural issues told the Seattle press a couple of years ago that it was not a matter of "if" but "when" Washington would have same-sex marriage.

Others are calling the effort on Referendum 71 "stupid" with no chance to win.

Things change. Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic Party nominee for President not so many months ago.

I was correctly quoted by the Times as saying that as the marriage issue continues to be the dominate cultural issue, it is going to force people to take a closer look at what marriage really is ---and is not.

Marriage is not about affirming a relationship between two (or more) people. It has always been about much more than that. It is not a measure of equality or fairness.

It is a unique and exceptional relationship that connects a man and a woman genetically to a child. How can that be altered or redefined?

Marriage is about the next generation. It is the cornerstone of every successful society in the history of the human race. Marriage between a man and a woman provides generational sustainability.

Homosexuality is not an identity. For generations it was identified as an act---"sodomy". Then it was upgraded to a condition---homosexuality. And finally it was further elevated to an identity equal in the minds of those who advanced it, to ethnicity.

The great advances that activists are counting on to carry them to national acceptance and redefinition of marriage have been built upon a false premise.

Homosexuality is not genetic and it is not equal to ethnicity. It cannot be honestly compared to the civil rights struggle of African Americans.

People generally rejected the act of sodomy, accommodated the "condition" of homosexuality and in recent years have been led to believe that to be tolerant and fair one must affirm the "identity." It is not an identity. At best it is a series of bad choices. At worst it is rebellion against the Creator and His natural law.

As people begin to take a closer look, and that has begun, at the real issues around marriage, it will become more and more clear why every major religion in the history of the world has condemned the practice of homosexuality and every successful culture has rejected it as a norm.

The favorability that the gay agenda has enjoyed recently, especially among the youth, toward so-called gay "marriage" may change as a more clear understanding emerges.

I do not personally believe the word "inevitable" best describes the effort to redefine and deconstruct marriage in America. Or in the State of Washington.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Nominee: Is She a Judicial Activist? Is She Racist?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
REFERENDUM UPDATE: I will be giving you an update on the status of Referendum 71 later today or in the morning. Your financial support is needed. Thank you.

To sign up to participate in the Petition Drive or to circulate petitions, click here.

President Barack Obama says Sonia Sotomayor, his nominee to the Supreme Court, is an outstanding choice. He says in his email yesterday afternoon, this is one of the most important decisions a President can make and he is certain that Ms. Sotomayor, "would show fidelity to our Constitution."

However, her record reflects something very different. It seems to indicate that she has a tendency toward judicial activism and is racist.

In a video from 2005 of a panel discussion with law students at Berkeley she said, a "court of appeals is where policy is made."

Policy is made in the courts? I thought policy was made by our elected officials in Congress.

She has also said, "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." President Obama told us during the campaign that he believed in a "living Constitution." This, of course, means that the Constitution is interpreted through the lens of a given philosophy at any given time. This woman seems to be a good fit.

Responding to a statement by Ruth Bader Ginsburg about a man and a woman arriving at the same conclusions, Sotomayer said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

In a recent case in New Jersey she ruled against the advancement of several fire fighters because they were white.

In 2001 she said that, ethnicity and sex of a judge, "May and will make a difference in our judging."

She has given a number of speeches on the importance of diversity. She has said the increasing diversity on the federal bench, "will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging."

Obama has said he wants a justice with "combined intellect and empathy."

Curt Levy, with the Committee for Justice, told Onenewsnow, "I actually thought he [Obama] was going to be smarter than that. I thought he would pick someone who was sort of closet judicial activist, not someone who can so easily be found on youtube joking with contempt about the fact that she makes policy as a judge."

She does not believe the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals, in her book, she suggests that international law should be used in our courts sometimes and has contributed to Planned Parenthood.

This nomination may be more about the President than the nominee. One thing is certain. President Obama continues with his mission to "remake" America.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Memorial Day: "More Than a Three Day Weekend"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
You may recall that the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Frank Buono, a former National Park Service employee back in 2001, because he was offended by a cross that had been erected in the California desert to honor those who had given their lives in service to our country.

The suit has worked its way through the court system and will now be heard by the Supreme Court---probably this fall.

The cross remains standing, but is encased in a plywood box, hidden from view in the desert, awaiting a verdict.

Ironically, this may symbolize more than a single case before the high Court.

It may also reflect a nation who is forgetting the Judeo-Christian principles upon which we were founded and is conflicted as to who we are and what we believe.

Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), wondered how someone who is offended by a single cross in the desert can drive by Arlington Cemetery.

Or, I might add, wander around the Capitol campus reading the inscriptions.

Davis also said, "This Memorial Day is more than just a three-day weekend at the beach, this is a time about remembrance."

As we move on toward Independence Day, I sincerely hope we remember those who gave their lives for the principles upon which this great country was founded.

It would serve us well to also remember the principles and their origin.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Friday, May 22, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
UPDATE. We continue to wait out the 5 day period in which anyone can contest Referendum 71. We are told that we will be required to print the entire text of SB 5688, which is about a hundred pages, on every petition. Clearly the printing expense will be significant. Thank you for your financial support.

Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage

Isn't banning homosexuals from marriage just like banning interracial marriage? I've heard that and so have you.

In the discourse of the public debate about same-sex marriage, in nearly every case, if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are marked as homophobic, mean-spirited and bigoted.

Same-sex advocates often point out how interracial marriage was banned because of prejudice and ignorance, drawing comparables to those who oppose homosexual marriage today.

"We," they say, "are struggling against the same civil rights bigotry as African Americans and other ethnic minorities have experienced."

But are they?

This tone is reflected in the media, almost without exception, including in my discussion with Ken Schram on KOMO radio earlier this week.

And this is the tone that is asking people to, "Decline 2 Sign Referendum 71"---a new campaign from Equal Rights Washington. Most of the rhetoric from the "homosexual rights" side suggests or infers that if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are doing so because you are bigoted and you hate homosexuals.

You are prejudiced.

Not so.

People of faith can oppose homosexuality and it's advancement to deconstruct society by redefining marriage, without hating anyone, including homosexual advocates or those who practice it.

Here's why and why also, ethnicity is different than homosexuality.

There's been a fundamental shift in the debate over homosexual rights over the past number of years. The rhetoric has been changed to accommodate the advocates.

As homosexuals have purposely shifted the rhetoric, it has made any moral objection or criticism, even that given out of concern for the good of individuals or society seem unloving or cruel.

Mark Steyn, a writer and social critic, and not necessarily a supporter of our position on marriage, made an interesting point in 2003 in a Chicago Sun Times article titled, "There's No Stopping Them Now." He noted a simple shift in the words and language of the homosexual movement, and credited this shift with a rapid advancement of their agenda.

Senator Ed Murray, without identifying it, referred to this power shift in an interview with the Seattle Times just last week.

Steyn says that historically, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same sex was identified as sodomy---an "act". An act, he says, is what it is.

Then Steyn explains in the late 19th century the act was re-described as a condition of certain persons, and was termed "homosexuality"---a condition a person was in.

A few decades ago he says homosexuality was upgraded again and now refers to a person's identity, so now we identify people as being "gay" or homosexuals.

Steyn writes:

"Each formulation raises the stakes. One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it's a fully-fledged, 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole hearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot."

This is the basis of the case for homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is not genetic and is not equal to ethnicity.

SB 5688 and its cousins from the past few years were never really about domestic partnerships, but a carefully planned strategy of incremental steps to marriage. SB 5688 is marriage. Even the Seattle Times editorial board said, "give them the name" following the passage of the bill.

Senator Murray explained that concept to the Times only a few days ago and also said that the conversations with the public were going very well. He suggested the more homosexuals talked with the public, the better they understood the gay agenda and were willing to support redefining marriage.

He is saying that time is on their side because they have reframed the conversation.

Two thoughts.

First, their case is framed on a false premise. They have redefined the words of the public discourse, leading people to a false conclusion. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and the effort to enshrine them into law without hating the person or people. Remember homosexuality is an act. It does not equate with race or ethnicity.

Secondly, if time is helpful to advance the homosexual agenda, why would people who say they oppose homosexual marriage also be suggesting that we should wait a year or two to address a bill that provides for same-sex marriage?

If you have been persuaded to step back and not support Referendum 71, waiting for a better political time, please reconsider. There will not be a good time politically to address this issue.

If you feel empathy toward people and their families and are conflicted about denying or taking something from them, keep in mind that there are reasons why natural marriage has been honored and given special considerations. Marriage is not simply about people who love each other, but it is about providing a genetically connected mother and father to birth and raise children, caring and providing for the next generation. Should we reject the wisdom of history regarding marriage as being only between a man and a woman?

And should we compromise our belief in very clear biblical teaching on the matter of homosexual acts, in the spirit of trying to be fair and good?

Clearly we should not. However, that is not the true question. The proper question is, "Can I oppose the acts of homosexuality and its advancement in our culture without hating or rejecting a person?"

Yes. You can do both. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and their advancement, while caring and praying for those who commit the acts.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Homosexuality a Choice: APA Agrees

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
UPDATE: We are waiting for release of Referendum 71 by the Attorney General's office. Design of the petition must include the full text of the nearly 100 page SB 5688. That is under design at the moment. Our printing costs will be unusually expensive. Thank you for your financial support.

Homosexuality a Choice: APA Agrees

The American Psychological Society (APA) has released a new brochure, affirming they have been unable to find a "gay-gene".

Although additional research was not identified or even referenced, clearly there is new evidence that has caused them to issue new statements.

It is generally known that there are extensive efforts to prove that people are born homosexual---that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli. This is fundamental to most all of the homosexual social agenda. These new statements further affirm that is not the case.

There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.

The APA had previously said that therapy cannot change sexual orientation. Now their comments are more nuanced on the subject and they are saying there is, "No scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective."

However, there is research that does support the conclusion that some people can and do change. It is identified in the link above.

If you do not have time to read anything else today, please take a moment and read the following personal story of Charlene Cothran.

Charlene is a former lesbian leader and editor of VENUS magazine. Her change came, not through therapy, but through a transformational experience with God's love, release and restoration.

She says after 29 years as a lesbian leader in the gay community, "I stand before you today as an epistle of change. I am proof that change is possible in the homosexual community."

If you are involved in the gay lifestyle and have questions or hesitations---read her experience. Take a couple moments in the privacy of this moment and see what she has to say.

Contrary to what you may have been told, Christian leaders, myself included, do not hate gays. We simply know there can be a better way. Take a chance and read Ms Cothran's words.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Gay Rights Activist Says Hate Crimes Laws are About Raising Money

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
REFERENDUM UPDATE: We are waiting for the mandatory 5-day period in which Referendum 71 can be contested. When that is satisfied, we will begin circulating petitions. So many have indicated that they will participate that we have established a form to assist us in handling the responses. Thank you so much. Click here if you will sign or circulate petitions.

Gay Rights Activist Says Hate Crimes Laws are About Raising Money

Frankly, I was shocked when I read on Andrew Sullivan's blog that hate crimes legislation is really about raising money.

Sullivan, a well known gay activist, has a column on his website which reads; "The real reason for hate crimes laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that---Matthew Shepherd's murder was successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate-crimes law at the time." (Article).

The column says, "The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings...It's a very powerful fundraising tool."

These comments are helpful in better understanding why faith based groups who work so hard with so little money are often accused of "doing it for the money" by homosexual activists.

I have no idea what goes on inside the homosexual activists organizations, however I can tell you with certainty that those who work tirelessly in faith based organizations are generally paid very modest salaries, if at all, and most often work without days off and are often publicly assaulted by those who disagree with their Judeo-Christian beliefs and stands on moral and social issues.

And are accused of doing what they do for "the money"?

Those in the faith community do what they do because of a deep abiding belief, a sense of calling and personal purpose and a recognition of a worthwhile cause, with eternal consequences.

We are always outspent by the other side, often second-guessed by some that should be on our side and sometimes vilified by public opinion. We operate on a month-to-month financial basis, do miracles with pennies and believe people of like mind will join us and God will help us.

We also expect to be successful with Referendum 71.

Evidently the faith activists and the gay rights activists live in two very different worlds.

Thank you for financially supporting us and standing with us in a worthy cause.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Gregoire Signs SB 5688 and Pledges to Stand Against Us

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Gov. Gregoire, as promised, signed SB 5688 yesterday after waiting as long as possible, reducing the number of days we will have to collect signatures.

The signing ceremony took place at the Montlake Community Center. The Seattle Times reported that about 300 mostly homosexual activists and lawmakers attended.

The Governor affirmed her continuing support for the homosexual agenda and promised to stand against those who plan to oppose it. That would be us. And hopefully, you.

She predicted that fellow Washingtonians will come forward and defeat our efforts, pledging to do everything in her power to defeat the effort to overturn SB 5688 with Referendum 71.

She declared, "I join you...I stand with you."

There is now a 5-day waiting period in which anyone can contest the referendum. When that is completed, we will begin printing and distributing petitions for signatures.

A massive effort is already underway to defeat us. They are calling it "Decline 2 Sign" and are raising money to get their message out. They will be asking citizens to refuse to sign the petition.

Your financial support is absolutely necessary. Although we expect to be outspent at least 6-to-1, if you will stand with us and do what you can, I believe we can prevail, with God's help.

Click here to donate.

Below is a video of the Governor's comments at the signing.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to send these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Seattle Times: DOMA "On The Edge Of Becoming Irrelevant"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Governor Gregoire is scheduled to sign SB 5688 today. Once signed the Referendum will need to be released by the Attorney General's office. There is a 5-day period wherein someone can contest some aspect of the referendum.

Thank you for the response to our survey. If you have not yet taken it, please do. We will be taking it down after today. At this point it is showing 86% in favor of the referendum and 14% opposed. Your responses and comments have been very helpful to this ministry.

Seattle Times: DOMA "On The Edge Of Becoming Irrelevant"

Rachel La Corte, with the Associated Press, said in an article that was carried in the Seattle Times yesterday, "Just 11 years ago, Washington State lawmakers barred same-sex marriage with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This week that law is on the edge of becoming irrelevant."

Indeed it is.

We have been saying this since SB 5688 was introduced earlier this year.

Senator Ed Murray, a sponsor of the bill, told the Times that in fact this was an incremental step to marriage. He told the Times that the incremental approach has been their strategic plan.

He said, "I believe DOMA won't long be the law of the state."

Here's why he believes that.

Murray says the conversations about homosexual marriage, "are changing the hearts and minds around the state."

This Referendum will be the tipping point.

Some are suggesting we should wait and fight it another day. When conditions are more favorable. They are mistaken. There will never be a "favorable" time to address this issue, but there will be a time when it is too late.

It has been publicly declared that those of us who support the referendum are making a "dumb " decision and have no chance to win. Political calculations and economic considerations may point some that direction, however many of us do not see this as a political issue. It is a spiritual one.

Murray and those who are advancing the redefining of marriage are doing so on the emotion of fairness, benefits and equality, however the institution of marriage is by its very nature only about the unique relationship between a man and a woman. (See Friday's blog.)

This is a watershed issue and moment for the future.

I cannot overstate the importance of your support in the coming days. Thank you for stepping up and standing with those of us who believe this is the right thing to do.

We will need a good amount of money to print the petitions, in that we are required to print the entire bill on each petition---and it is an extensive bill and very lengthy.

Click here to donate to the PAC.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid for by Faith and Freedom PAC.

I am told that Governor Gregoire has scheduled the signing of SB 5688 for Monday. I am also told that the sponsors of the bill will join her in celebration. Once the bill is signed, the Secretary of State will authorize and release us to begin gathering signatures for Referendum 71. I am told this could take a few days as well. It appears that when we are finally able to go on the referendum, we will likely have only about 60 days remaining to collect the signatures. Many are declaring our defeat before we begin. Some who should be supporting are sitting it out.
We believe in miracles. We also believe in the people who stand for marriage. Together, with God's help, we believe we can get this referendum on the ballot. To say we need your support and help would be an understatement. We will keep you updated.

Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage

Over the next few weeks I will take a few days to address some of the questions and charges that are raised by those who want to redefine marriage.

The primary source for my comments will be taken from a book titled, "Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting," written by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier. You can buy it from Amazon for $10.20 and yes, if you buy it through our website Faith and Freedom Foundation will receive between 4% and 8% on your purchase. (Click here for details). If not through us, please buy the book somewhere. Every family that cares about marriage and family and its future, should have this book in their home. Particularly in these days when marriage is under such assault. Every person of faith should read it--parent and child.

One of the questions often raised by those who want to redefine marriage is, "If heterosexuals can fall in love and form committed relationships called marriage, why can't we?" Or, "If heterosexuals gain access to legal, tax and health benefits with their marriages, why can't homosexuals have access to these same benefits when they commit themselves to one another?"

Marriage equality.

Here's something to consider.

I watched as homosexual couples brought their children into the hearings on SB 5688 to testify and help make the case for same-sex parenting. The adults and children argued that kids need loving parents and two men or two women can love and care for a child as well as a mother and a father can. They often point to the failures in marriage as reason to redefine it.

Here's the problem with that.

These arguments exclusively serve the interests of those making the argument. They are never about serving the common good.

Marriage is never only about the couple. It is always about the larger community. Marriage is an agreement between a couple and the larger society. Concern for the good of all society is the primary reason social institutions such as churches and governments get involved at all.

In the great debate about marriage we seem to have forgotten that marriage is not just about benefits for the couple. It always includes concern for the next generation.

Stanton and Maier expand on this a great deal and outline why every society needs marriage and how it contributes to the greater good. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:

*Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.
*Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.
*Protects women from being exploited from men.
*Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.

The failure of some marriages is not a legitimate argument to redefine and deconstruct marriage.

The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.

Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.

Stanton and Maier conclude, there is simply no social need for same-sex "marriage". But all societies need what they call natural marriage.

Consider this.

Could society be harmed by too much same-sex "marriage"? Of course, if all or a majority of "marriages" were same-sex, a society would disappear.

On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.

Natural marriage cannot be regarded as "equal" in social value and benefit. Society needs one, but does not need the other.

"Marriage equality" cannot be achieved by simply redefining or deconstructing natural marriage.

SB 5688 is not about benefits or children, it is the final incremental step to redefining marriage. If you are unsure about the issue of defending marriage, please consider these things.

To those in the faith community who have been persuaded to sit this out and not support the defense of marriage for whatever reason, please reconsider.

If you have been led away from supporting Referendum 71 because of political calculations and economic considerations, please reconsider.

We cannot wait two years to address the deconstruction of marriage.

Consider this:

"If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done."

"God's ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind, and the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the body of a baby while it is yet in its mother's womb." Ecclesiastes 11:4-6 Living Bible.

Strategy is a good and wise action. Being faithful in standing for righteousness and righteous purposes and principles is the higher calling.

There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.

Thank you for standing with us.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

IRS Rules in Favor of Traditional Values Advocacy

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
While Governor Gregoire has not yet signed SB 5688 which will allow us to begin the referendum process, she has found time to sign a bill that will help bail out the news media. She has signed a bill that substantially reduces the tax liabilities for newspapers and should help them move toward profitability.

IRS Rules in Favor of Traditional Values Advocacy

The IRS has ruled, in a letter to Niemoller Foundation, that the Houston based non-profit organization did not violate its tax-exempt status when it brought together pastors and politicians to champion moral issues during Republican Rick Perry's 2006 re-election campaign for governor.

Many of us have been watching this case with great interest.

While pastors and churches can not directly endorse a specific candidate or spend a substantial, key word, substantial part of their budget on legislative lobbying, they are free to engage, according to this ruling, in political acts on behalf of moral values.

The liberal Texas Freedom Network had filed a complaint with the IRS charging that pastors who were encouraging congregants to get out and vote and be educated on the issues were in effect promoting Rick Perry for Governor. The IRS did not agree.

Lutheran pastor Lawrence White, director of The Niemoller Foundation said, "The IRS has unequivocally affirmed the right of pastors nationwide to come together as spokesmen for the Word of God, to interact with political leaders, historians and scholars in discussing moral issues under debate within our culture, to assert their Biblical responsibility to address such issues from their pulpits."

This is a major victory.

Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network is not happy about the ruling. Intimidation is often used to silence any moral voice that speaks against immorality and for biblical truth. He says he hopes pastors don't think they have too much freedom now.

He also worried out loud that the ruling will, "embolden wealthy special interests to funnel money into non-profits."

I sincerely hope so.

He says he thinks it's sleazy for people of faith to be involved in politics. Ironically, when one of the few liberal pastors or leaders speak in favor of abortion or same-sex marriage, he and others hail their words as inspired and representative of all people of faith. I guess it all depends which side of the issue you stand.

This is a message to all pastors who have had concern about speaking to the issues of our day from a biblical perspective. The message is: Let not you heart be troubled---fear not. This is a victory.

Now that America's pastors know they are free to proclaim the truth of God's Word and speak into our culture from their pulpits---will they?

America's future hangs on that question.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Global Warming Legislation: Most Regressive "Change" Yet

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid for by Faith and Freedom PAC

We expect Gov. Gregoire to sign SB 5688 by Monday---maybe sooner.

Each day they have delayed signing the legislation is one less day we have for signature gathering. I'm certain they are aware of that.

This is going to be a battle of, as they say, epic proportion, with many on the other side already declaring those of us who are defending marriage, dead on arrival.

Some whom we thought would support us have opted out. Words can not adequately express how very much we need your financial support in this matter. Click here to make a donation to the PAC.

Thank you. We will keep you posted.

Warming Legislation: Most Regressive "Change" Yet

Forget the swine flu, we are about to be smitten by global warming. Not the actual warming, but the cure for it.

The cure will be epidemic and could accomplish what our external enemies have not been able to accomplish.

The Waxman-Markey global warming legislation is supposed to reduce your carbon footprint, thus saving us from global warming. Not to worry that a growing chorus of scientists are expressing dissenting views as how to address global warming and even if global warming actually exists as it is presented by the progressive left.

The Waxman-Markey legislation is designed to reduce carbon emission levels that would be equal to that of 1875. That's right, 134 years ago. That's the last time America's carbon emissions matched the goals these progressives have established.

The Obama administration prides itself in being progressive, yet this is the most regressive legislation in memory. It will take us back to the 19th century. If you want to know what it will look like culturally, take a trip to Haiti.

Haiti's current level of carbon emissions is equal to what Waxman-Markey calls for in America.

Joel Barton, a Texas Republican and ranking member of the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee says a trip to Haiti gives you a look at the goal of the present global warming legislation.

"The place," he says, "that has actually achieved it as a nation is swimming in bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, typhoid fever, dengue fever and malaria, with 47% illiteracy and a life expectancy of 49 years."

Joel has written an excellent column on the subject.

He says the accounting office can't even tell the committee how much this will cost in dollars. However the Heritage Foundation says it will create a loss of at least 1.8 million to 5.3 million jobs. Charles Rivers Associates estimates job loss as high as 7 million.

The so-called cure will kill the patient.

Barton says if this legislation is allowed to pass, "I think we can expect to start buying more Mexican cement, Chinese fertilizer and Indian steel."

I want my country back.

This is a time for reasonable people to take a closer look at regressive legislation creeping forward under the blanket of "change". This is regressive environmental madness.

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

America: "Remake" it or "Restore" it?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid for by Faith and Freedom PAC

I am told that Governor Gregoire intends to sign SB 5688 on Monday. Following her signature, we should be able to begin gathering signatures very soon. We will keep you posted.

Thank you for taking the time to do our survey. This information is very helpful. If you have not taken it yet, please do so. If you have, please encourage others to do so as well.

Your donation to Faith and Freedom PAC is needed at this time. Thank you.

America: "Remake" it or "Restore" it?

On his 100th day in office President Obama declared, "We have begun the work of remaking America."

But does the most blessed and prosperous nation in the history of the world need to be "remade" or simply "restored"?

Candidate Obama ran on the promise of change. He is delivering. But did those who voted for him have that kind of change in mind. Some polls seem to suggest that while his personal popularity is high, his policies are not getting such high marks.

In a few days in office his administration has moved us dramatically toward the left---toward a secularist, socialistic European model.

The President has reversed Bush policies that limited abortions both here and abroad, promised to pass the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" which removes virtually all restraint on abortion on demand and has promised to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

He has re-ordered our economy under the guise of stimulus and has already created more national debt than that of every US President combined since George Washington. He has promised "skyrocketing" utilities costs as a result of his extreme, aggressive campaign against global warming, using a cap and trade tax and "investing" trillions more in "green" industries. He will impose CO2 emission standards that will take us back more than a hundred years, literally choking the economy. Many feel his universal health care program will bankrupt the country and diminish the quality of our present health care system as government takes over the industry.

He covered up the symbol of Jesus Christ's name---IHS--- at Georgetown University during his speech, told Turkey and the Muslim world that America is not a "Christian" nation and pushed way back at last weeks National Day of Prayer event.

While Mr. Obama is busy "remaking " America, there are some who have a different vision--in my view, a better vision for our country.

They are taking steps to "restore" it.

Several members of Congress have now announced House Resolution 397 which is called, "America's Spiritual Heritage Resolution."

Let me tell you about it.

It outlines 73 milestones in America's past such as, "In God We Trust," being added to our coinage in 1864. It would also designate the first week of May as "American Religious History Week."

Representatives Randy Forbes, R-VA., and Mike McIntyre, D-NC, announced the bi-partisan resolution last week.

McIntyre said, "We meet right off the House floor to pray for wisdom. As we realized more and more the great spiritual heritage that this country has that surrounds us in the buildings and the monuments (in DC), we think it is high time that we affirm the great spiritual heritage of our nation and what better time to do it than the first week of May, when we celebrate the National Day of Prayer."

Representative Paul Broun, R-GA., a physician, said God has His own prescription for curing the nation's ills---"But Americans seem to have things backwards when it comes to God."

"Politicians," he said, "end speeches often by saying, 'God bless America'. They have it wrong. It should be, 'America, bless God.'"

Let's hope and pray for "restoration," not the extreme make-over that is well underway.

Blog Update: This is a follow up to the topic of my blog yesterday. LA Times Article.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, May 11, 2009

What was President Obama Thinking?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid for by Faith and Freedom PAC

Thank you to all who have taken our survey. Many of you have politely pointed out that my numbers were wrong on Friday. Some of you have been,shall we say, "not so polite", demanding to get to the bottom of it.

Here's the deal. There are no absolutes. If truth is what you understand or want it to be, why can't 98.8+6.7+1.5=100%?

Truth. I made a mistake---it was a type-o. Our proof read didn't catch it.

As of this morning, with hundreds more participants than Friday, the numbers are; 87% Yes, 13% No.

If you have not yet taken the survey, please do. If you have, please encourage friends to do so as well. This information is helpful and your comments are very valuable. Some of the developing results on other issues on the survey are very interesting as well. Thank you so much. Click here for survey.

Your donation to the PAC helps us move forward to overturn SB 5688 with Referendum 71. We will begin gathering signatures as soon as the Governor signs the bill.

What was President Obama Thinking?

I'm sure you know that every year there is a White House Correspondent's Dinner in Washington DC. This year's event was Saturday night.

The hallmark of the event is that people make fun of the President and the President pokes fun at the press. At least, that's the simple explanation. This year some feel the comments by Wanda Sykes, the first African American woman and according to the Huffington Post, openly gay, person ever to perform jokes at the dinner.

While most in the main stream press sanitized the evening, Toby Harnden, who attended the event, feels her comments were way out of line and the President's response was inappropriate.

Among other comments, she said Rush Limbaugh should be charged with treason, was the 20th hijacker, but was so strung out on OxyContin he missed the flight and she wishes his kidneys would fail. All because Limbaugh has said he hopes Obama's administration fails because he feels Obama is leading us into socialism.

As she called Limbaugh a terrorist, a traitor and wished him dead, Obama, according to Harnden, seemed to think, "It was pretty hilarious, grinning and chuckling and turning to share the joke with the person on his right."

This from the man who said he would bring civility and elevated debate to Washington. It is chilling to hear comments about death or the hope of death for those who disagree with the administration. That is Hope we can not tolerate.

I have linked Harnden's story and the video of her remarks and the President's response.

On a personal note, I also felt the President's comments, particularly the one about his chief of staff having difficulty using the word "day" after the word mother, were below any level of dignity we should expect from our President.

I have also linked this morning's article from the Washington Times.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, May 08, 2009

I'm Getting a Different Response to the Referendum

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Since an all out effort has been made to derail a referendum to overturn SB 5688 during the past few days, just as it was being filed, and that effort has been taken to the press and widely reported in both the local and some national press, we decided to take a survey which includes the question "Do you support referendum 71?"

We are getting a different response than the one being reported and used as a measure of "sea change" by Danny Westneat at The Seattle Times and others.

The survey referenced by Westneat was, according to the report, taken among "right leaning political or religious activists." Westneat calls the survey a "revealing memo." Indeed it is.

Our survey is being taken among "right leaning political or religious activists" and some ordinary people who go to church, believe the Bible teaches against homosexual relations and really don't think those relations should be enshrined into law. Particularly by redefining marriage through an incremental expansion of domestic partnership legislation.

You can read the material Westneat references. It refers to 34 people who were contacted. Of the 34 the "revealing memo" says were contacted, only 6, says the memo, were favorable toward a referendum. It involves lengthy quotes of those contacted.

This has led Westneat, and others, to agree that, "It's dumb to try to repeal it. [ SB 5688 ] We'd lose. We'd set our cause back." And conclude with some who said that many within the Republican Party have moved on from these kinds of issues and feel that "we Christians don't understand that 'gay marriage' is just fair and Christians should get over it."

The "revealing memo" reveals that leaders and elected officials were contacted among the 34.

Faith and Freedom is getting a little different picture. With several hundreds filling out our survey, it is running, as of this morning, 98.8% who favor the referendum and 6.7% who oppose it. The other 1.5% aren't sure.

Ironically, I received a call yesterday from someone quoted in the"revealing memo" as one who does not support the referendum, telling me a check was in the mail to help.

Perhaps those who desperately want the gay agenda advanced, such as most in the press, or those who may not be listening to enough people, could be wrong.

Joel Connelly, at the Seattle PI says he doesn't think the referendum has a chance. He says those who are advancing it are doing so "on a wing and a prayer."

I can go with prayer every time. Maybe, just maybe, more wings will sprout on the biblical believers and conservatives than some can even imagine.

If you have not yet filled out the survey, please do and forward the link to as many friends, family and community contacts as possible. Click here for the survey.

Have a great weekend. Talk to people at church this weekend about getting involved and helping---growing some wings.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Michael Savage Banned from UK for "Extremism"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Paid For By Faith and Freedom PAC.

Clearly the battle has begun over the referendum effort to overturn SB 5688. We are being challenged on several fronts. Some were expected---some were not. There are those predicting our failure. Many are answering the call to stand for marriage. Please help us with your donation today to Faith and Freedom PAC or mail check to Faith and Freedom PAC, Box 65, Olympia, WA 98507-0065.

Michael Savage Banned from UK for " Extremism"

I don't intend to make a case for or against Michael Savage---he makes his own case.

However, I do want to draw attention to the fact that the UK has a published "black list" based on what they consider extremism. In looking over the names, I would agree that some if not many of these folks should raise concern. (Read list).

But who decides what is "extreme"?

Well, the government does.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said on behalf of the government, "The government opposes extremism in all forms and I am determined to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages."

This past February she banned Dutch lawmaker and filmmaker, Geert Wilders, who made a film linking Islam to terror attacks. Now Savage.

This could not happen in America---right?

The Washington Times ran a story yesterday about our own Homeland Security Department and their "extremism" list and lexicon.

You have likely heard that our Homeland Security Dept. office has categorized a group of people whom they consider extremists or have a propensity toward extremism. That list included whites, blacks, Christians, Jews, Cubans, Mexicans, abortion foes and veterans.

The list met with such outrage from the public, that it was recalled.

They had defined their work as one with lists, definitions and key terms, "that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States."

It is called the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon."

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudna said, "The lexicon was never an authorized I&A product and was recalled as soon as management discovered it?"

Not authorized? Do the people at the Department of Homeland Security just do what they want and publish things without authorization?

There are certainly those who threaten our security and that must be addressed, however not a few people are concerned about the ability of some in this administration to protect our country. This doesn't help.

It is also concerning when a government starts deciding what is and is not "extreme"---particularly when you see a talk show host and a film maker/elected official on the list.

With the continuing full court press for more and more special rights and corresponding "hate crimes" legislation in our own country, one could wonder how long before dissent on those issues could be considered extreme. Or a biblical belief that homosexuality is sin is extreme. Or a pastor's sermon from Romans Ch. 1 is "spreading extremism"?

Many challenges lie ahead. Look up. Thanks for standing with us.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Secretary of State Undermines Referendum Effort

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The Washington State Secretary of State's office undermined our press release yesterday regarding our filing a referendum to overturn SB 5688.

Here's what happened.

Within the last few days legal council has made us aware that we could actually file for a referendum before Governor Gregoire signed SB 5688 into law.

Larry Stickney, myself, and others decided to go ahead and file yesterday.

Larry had a couple of questions about the filing and was told to talk to Teresa Glidden in the Secretary's office. She is the expert on initiatives and referendums.

While Larry was driving to Olympia yesterday to file, both he and I began receiving calls from the press, asking about our filing. I told them we had not actually filed yet.

It was then that we learned that the Secretary of State's office had sent an unauthorized memo to the press regarding our intentions to file "today".

We had planned to file around midday yesterday, be sure everything was okay, then when everything was properly filed, put out our press release.

Both the Seattle Times and KING 5 told me they thought this was unusual and did not recall receiving anything like this before from the Secretary's office.

Larry confronted the Secretary's office and received an apology from David Ammons, former reporter, now working in the Secretary's office. He called it an "unofficial leak." People at the Seattle Times and KING 5 told me they believed the memo was from Ammons or Glidden. Larry told me that Secretary Reed gave a "sort of" apology as well.

We have not expected any help from either the press and certainly not from the Secretary of State's office, however, we did not expect the Secretary's office to undermine our ability to present ourselves to the press with our own release.

We have filed the referendum. It is Referendum 71.

It is classified as a "conditional" filing, which means that should the Governor change anything in the bill before signing it, the referendum would be adjusted accordingly.

Our preempted press release will be sent out this morning.

We can now begin to raise money for the effort, but cannot yet begin to collect signatures. That will follow in a few days.

If you are on the side of marriage, this is our time.

People of faith and conservatives must carry this referendum drive. There is no one else.

Let The Church Rise.

We need your donation today. We are underway and expenses have started.

To give directly to the effort you should give to Faith and Freedom PAC. As you know, that donation is not tax-deductible.

You may donate here or send a check to:

Faith & Freedom PAC
Box 65
Olympia, WA 98507-0065

This will likely be the last time we address homosexual marriage in this public way. If we fail and this bill stands, homosexual couples will file a discrimination suit, claiming that there is no difference between domestic partners and marriage and that they are being discriminated against if the name marriage is with held. They will win because there is now, with the passage of this bill to law, no legal difference between D.P. and marriage.

DOMA will be declared irrelevant.

Dozens of organizations are standing together on this issue. Will you stand with us? Soon we will be asking you to help gather signatures.

Today, we are asking for your most generous donation to Faith and Freedom PAC.

Please forward this to friends and family asking them to join us.

Thank you and God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Janis Kristiansen: "WA Democratic Leadership Is Corrupt"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
A little over a week ago, Rep. Dan Kristiansen's wife, Janis, sent out an email as a result of a phone conversation with her husband, the Representative.

In it she expresses, in detail, the frustration many people toward the present condition of Washington State government.

Her remarks are directed specifically toward the budget process and the deceptive way in which it was handled.

Many feel other issues, such as social issues, are being handled in the same manner.

Governor Gregoire has yet to sign SB 5688, although the Legislature has passed it.

Why would she delay signing a bill that she wholeheartedly supports?

Are those who sponsored the bill purposefully delaying getting it to her in proper form for signature in order to delay and eliminate some of the time allotted for signature gathering, should a referendum be filed?

Who knows what goes on in the darkness.

Janis Kristiansen's email will not be encouraging, but it will certainly be enlightening.


Corrupt Democrat Leadership in WA State
By Janis Kristiansen
3:40 pm
Thursday, April 24, 2009

Since NO ONE in the press is going to report this, I will. I just got off the phone with my husband, State Rep. Dan Kristiansen.

In summary, this is what he said.

At the beginning of session this year, the Democrats in control in the House changed the rules and eliminated the 24 hour rule from when the budget is introduced to when it can be voted upon. In the past, the budgets were rolled out for review, and no vote on any budget could happen until at LEAST 24 hours had passed, giving time for the minority party (read Republicans) to review the budget, and make an intelligent vote on it.

This morning, April 24, three days before the end of session, the Democrats announced that NO amendments to the capitol budget could be introduced (most amendments are offered by the opposing party, usually) after 3 pm today. Guess when the Democrats released the capitol budget today, for the Republicans to get a first review of it? At 3:25pm, 25 minutes after cut-off for any amendments to be offered. So, for the Republicans, NO amendments can be offered because the Democrats released the operating budget for the Republicans to see 25 minutes after the deadline for amendments to be accepted. This is CORRUPT.

The story is not over. The operating budget, separate from the capitol budget, was emailed to the Republicans this morning at 1:30 AM, early in the morning. It is several hundred pages. The Democrats then said NO amendments were going to be allowed to the capitol budget after 12 noon today. So, in the middle of the night the Democrats release the capitol budget, and then announce no amendments are allowed after 12 noon, AND they are voting on this budget this afternoon.

This is the corrupt nature of the Democrats in control. How are Republicans supposed to vote yes or no on these budgets, hundreds of pages long, that spend approximately $34 billion dollars each biennium, when they are given no time to review it, or offer even hurried amendments to it? The Democrats realize they have almost a super majority; so in essence, it’s OK to ignore the Republicans during the budget process.

Please email this article to everyone you know in WA. The 5000 people who came to the Tea Party in Olympia, myself included, and who participated in one of the 30 tea parties across our state, need to know this is the level of corruption in the Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives in WA. Rep. Dan said this Operating Budget offered sets our state up for an approximate $10 billion shortfall in the 2011 biennium. This is outrageous! Where is self-restraint? Where is responsibility? Where is the good stewardship of tax payer dollars?

Friday, May 01, 2009

Congress Passes More "Hate-Crimes" Legislation

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
U.S. Congress has passed a new and expanded "hate-crimes" bill (HR 1913) that federally protects all "sexual orientations" and "gender identities."

Some say it will also protect pedophiles.

Congress rushed this bill through, refusing to even properly define those orientations and identities they are protecting.

Rep. Steve King R-IA. repeatedly asked lesbian activist and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to define "sexual orientation." Each time she refused until finally she became visibly shaken at the notion that this bill will likely protect pedophiles.

With promises and assurances from the gay activists who led and sponsored the bill, that it would have no effect on religious freedoms and freedom of speech, Congress passed the bill.

It is very troubling to see which two Northwest Republican lawmakers voted in favor of this new law.

Lou Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty of The Traditional Values Coalition have followed this legislation very closely and in fact provided research for some lawmakers who worked to defeat it.

Please note on the 24-175 vote that Washington State Republican Rep. Dave Reichert voted in favor of this bill. Greg Walden R-Ore. voted in favor as well.

That is very disappointing.

Gary Randall
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.