Thursday, September 30, 2010

Americans Don't Know Much About Religion

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons scored among the highest on a new survey of religious knowledge in America.

On average, Americans correctly answered 16 of 32 religious knowledge questions on a newly released survey by
Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Atheists and agnostics answered an average of 20.9 of 32 questions correctly. Jews and Mormons, 20.5 and 20.3 respectively. Protestants as a whole correctly answered 16 of 32, with Catholics as a whole correctly answering 14.7 of 32 questions.

The survey covered a broad range of questions, more academic than moral. On questions about Christianity and the Bible, Mormons averaged 7.9 correct out of 12 questions, while white evangelical Protestants got 7.3 out of 12 correct.

The study found, among other things, that Americans don't understand constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools.

A majority---89%, knew that public school teachers cannot lead a class in prayer, but only 23% knew that the Supreme Court has stated that teachers can read from the Bible as an example of literature.

The Pew Researchers wrote that, "Many Americans think the constitutional restrictions on religion are tighter than they really are."

This survey was released at the "God In America National Symposium On Religious Literacy" in Washington DC this past Tuesday.

PBS has funded a new three-part documentary titled, "
God In America," that will be airing in most cities around the country.

They say the series interweaves documentary footage, historical dramatization and interviews to explore the historical role of religion in the US, including its impact on society, politics and culture.

Honestly, I'm not terribly optimistic about the outcome of such a project done under the influence of PBS. I would recommend
David Barton's materials.

Whatever this survey may or may not reflect and whatever the PBS special may communicate to the public, one thing is certain. Absolutely certain.

The direct responsibility of educating children on Judeo-Christian moral principles and values is given by God, to parents---not to public education, the media or their peers---not even primarily to the church.

While many kids attend church and Sunday school from broken and dysfunctional homes and this indeed is their only spiritual lifeline---thank God, the biblical model is that the ministry of the church be directed to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) and strengthen the parents so they may properly teach their children God's truths, with the various church ministries affirming the teaching.

Our culture has led us to believe or at least accept, that most of our kid's education will happen among peers and the public school classroom.

Television and the entertainment industry encourages kids to find security, acceptance and understanding outside the home, often attacking the traditional, biblical model of home and family.

Scripture is clear how children are to be morally and spiritually educated. Judeo-Christian values are to be taught in the home---all the time.

Here's a good example of how it should work.

"These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." Deuteronomy 6: 6-7.

This directly tells us who should teach, what should be taught and when it should be taught.

While there may be a literacy problem with Americans knowledge of religion, I pray we will not neglect teaching our children the Judeo-Christian principles and values that will bring purpose, blessing and understanding to them throughout their lives. And ultimately eternal life through their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Be Wise. Be Diligent. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Peacock Promotes Polygamy

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I rarely watch NBC or its Today Show, but it was on the other day as they introduced Kody Brown and his 4 "wives."

They have a new reality show on TLC called "Sister Wives."

During the 9-minute interview on NBC, the Brown family was given complete latitude to explain their "family" and the dynamics of 4 women sharing one "husband". Their own family values.

He explained his lifestyle was "faith based." "Part of a faith belief." "I followed through with it and this is kind of where it landed," he said.

The interview with Meredith Vieira seemed more like a promotional press conference than a regular interest story. She focused on issues like jealousy and how the wives share one man.

The Brown "family" portrayed themselves as victims in a harsh world that doesn't understand. "Living in a closed society such as ours," they said, "makes you feel kind of oppressed."

The group said, "they hope to create more transparency for those in our faith." To help others who are misunderstood.

Rather than raising questions regarding the fact that Brown is actually married to only one of the women legally or raising questions about the potential psychological impact of these relationships on the 13 children they have dragged into this environment, she said, "These days families include single parents, step parents, single moms, even two moms and two dads."

While some are normalizing polygamy on NBC and others are attempting to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress, you have to wonder if equality will reach to those who practice polyamory---which is "group marriage."

Not to worry. The media has that well in hand.

Media Research, from which I drew for this article, wondered the same thing and found through their research that the media is treating polyamory in much the same "normal" conversational way. Here's an example from 2 years ago in the Washington Post.

While the media carries the torch for those who wish to redefine marriage and family, angry homosexual activists met President Obama in New Mexico with the chant, "Hey Obama, can't you see, we demand equality."

The demands being made today for homosexual "marriage" will be the same demands that will and are being made for polygamy. If "marriage" is granted to homosexuals, how then can a legitimate argument be made against granting "marriage" to polygamists?


And how can we not grant "equality" to those who practice polyamory? They say their relationships are meaningful and they love each other. And will we discriminate against first cousins and even brothers and sisters who love each other and want to marry?

Our children are being educated in public school to not only accept these kinds of alternative relationships as "family" and "deserving of marriage" status, but social combinations that should be celebrated.

And those who do not do so are labeled as "bigots".

God help us.

Be Prayerful. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Mourning in America

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Pharmacists' Right of Conscience hearings continue tomorrow, Sept. 29, from 1 PM to 4 PM at 20809 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA. Many are following and participating in these hearings. Several of our readers plan to attend the hearing next week in Kent. If possible, please plan to attend and give testimony that you, "support a pharmacist's right of conscience." You may also leave a written testimony.

Don't forget to grade
The Pledge to America in our Reader Poll.

Mourning in America

As President Obama and Vice President Biden launch an ambitious, cross country scramble to fix the upcoming elections and cure the hemorrhaging of support for their "Great Experiment" that is miserably failing, a new television ad is released nationwide.

Mourning in America" is a whisper-----not a shout.

It's a parallel to an ad Ronald Reagan ran in 1984---"Morning in America."

Kathleen Parker, with the Washington Post Writers Group, is no conservative and her comments are more regretful and wistful than complimentary when she says yesterday, "Sometimes when everyone is shouting, only a whisper can be heard."

I think this ad will be heard.

Parker thinks the ad seeks to tap the country's sadness, not our anger.

Parker's story, which I have linked, includes more of her comments and a text of the narrative in both the Reagan ad and the newly released one.

However, I strongly recommend you take 2 minutes and watch each 1 minute ad.
They are linked here. Watch "Morning in America" first, then watch "Mourning in America."

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Thanks for
your support.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Republicans Make "Pledge to America"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Many are weighing in on the "Pledge," which promises to honor the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment; to advance liberty, opportunity, national defense, national prosperity---and to honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith based organizations that form the core of our American values.

"We plan," they pledge, "to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind."

I'm asking you to evaluate their "Pledge" today by taking our
readers poll. We will be passing this information to Republican candidates as soon as we receive your input. It's very important we hear from you as soon as possible.

Take a moment and read
The Pledge. It's a short read, but very important. Then attach a grade to the Pledge by going to our reader's poll. You will grade it with "A" if you feel it is excellent, descending to an "F" if you feel it is not strong enough.

The results will be shared with all state Republican candidates in this election.

Planned Parenthood president,
Cecile Richards, has responded forcefully, saying these Republicans will restrict abortions and manipulate the federal tax code. She says the Pledge, "is an extreme proposal that would ... end private health insurance coverage for abortion."

Ms. Richards says, "We urge Americans to reject extreme proposals," in the upcoming mid-term elections.

We would expect this response from the abortion industry leader.

However, there are those voices within the Republican Party urging candidates to set aside or remain silent on the so-called "controversial social issues." They say you can't get elected if you take a public position on these issues. There are those Republicans presently in elected office in Washington State who are advocating for this "moderate position".

The most important opinion, in the end, is that of the voters.

We value your feed back on this document. Thanks for taking a moment and
letting your voice be heard.

Thank you for your support of our work.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Obamacare Began Yesterday---I'm feeling Ill Today

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

They say if you want a friend in Washington DC---get a dog.

It could be said if you want a friend in New York City, be far left, get elected to the presidency, and you'll have The New York Times.

And they were wagging their friendly "tale" yesterday as Obamacare officially started.

"For many families,"
they wagged, "health care relief begins today." As I read the article, I began to feel a little ill. But I can't find relief in the plan.

"Sometimes lost," they continued, "in the partisan clamor about new health care law is the profound relief it is expected to bring to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been stricken by disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system."

Key words: Partisan clamor. Profound. Expected.

In which partisan clamor is the truth about Obamacare lost?

The Washington Examiner editorial board created a list of "clamor".

* Obamacare does not decrease health care costs for the government as promised. Medicare's own actuary confirms it will increase, not decrease costs.

* Obamacare does cover elective abortions, contrary to the President's promise that it wouldn't.

*Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and want to keep.

* Obamacare will increase insurance premiums. In some places, it already has. Insurers will now be forced to cover client's children until age 26. Insurance will be forced to raise premiums.

* Obamacare will force seasonal employers to pay huge fines or cut hours or lay off employees.

*Obamacare imposes a non medical tax compliance burden on small businesses. They are now required to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in one year, with a duplicate form mailed to the IRS.

*Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. It also funds 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce these policies.

The "partisan clamor" has begun and The Times and other enablers will tell you Obamacare has brought profound" relief to the country.

Another key word in The New York Times story is "expected." You will see and hear this word often. Why? Because it is non committal and requires no facts.

Yesterday, I wrote about and quoted people who voted for and supported Obama, but have now grown very weary. "Exhausted" was how one supporter explained it on national television, personally speaking to the President.

There expectations have not been met. Even to a small degree.

Neither will those of anyone expecting Obamacare and the policies of the President, Pelosi, Reid and their enablers such as Senator Patty Murray.

The NYT story is merely a foretaste of what is to come over the next 25 months. From now through the November election and right on into the 2012 election we will hear the partisan clamor.

President Obama is already reconstructing his campaign structure and he has never really stopped campaigning since he was elected. But they will avoid the facts and realities.

Build expectations.

They make much about the fact that children with pre-existing conditions are now covered by their parent's plan, but don't mention that major insurance companies have dropped their child only insurance plans---as reported last week in the
Washington Post, as a result of these new mandates.

The NYT highlights people, "who have been stricken first by a disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system." Carefully avoiding facts that diminish their case.

National Public Radio reported that although the state high risk pools have been up and running for months now, very few people have signed up or seem to need the program.

Clearly, there are special needs in these areas and they must be addressed.

We need health care reform. But not one that is imposed under the guise of helping people while advancing a socialist agenda.

How do you justify the greatest act of wealth re-distribution in the history of our country and the dismantling of the world's best medical care, for this?

You'll see. Just watch. The "wag" is well underway. On many fronts.

Politicians across the country are running from what they just helped pass.

As Pilate, they will wash their hands and say, "I had nothing to do with it." Yet their actions have been destructive to many.

The first local example is the tagline on a Patty Murray TV ad.

With a straight, mom in tennis shoes face, she says, "And every penny counts."

This is from a woman who has been recognized and applauded for her assistance in helping the Obama, Pelosi, Reid "remaking" of America with the passage of Obamacare. It has been said she is the fourth most powerful woman in Washington DC. She has helped this administration ram Obamacare through Congress, creating debt our kids will never be able to repay and trillion dollar stimulus packages that didn't stimulate anyone other then unions and close associates to this administration. They have racked up more national debt than all preceding presidents combined.

Every penny counts?

How many pennies are in a trillion dollars? She's suggesting restraint?

The far left elite in elected office and their very best friends in the media are about wage the greatest war of words and deception most of us have seen in a very long time---if ever.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed. There is a better day coming.

We are doing our best to inform and involve people. We are seeing a significant response. Thank you for
supporting our efforts.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Mr. President, "I'm Exhausted Of Defending You"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Pharmacists' Right of Conscience hearings continue next Wednesday, Sept. 29, from 1 PM to 4 PM at 20809 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA. Many are following and participating in these hearings. Several of our readers plan to attend the hearing next week in Kent. If possible, please plan to attend and give testimony that you, "support a pharmacist's right of conscience." You may also leave a written testimony.

"I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change I voted for. I've been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people and I'm waiting sir, I'm waiting. I still do not feel it yet."

It was billed as a Town Hall meeting with the President and a carefully selected audience---televised live on CNBC.

They called it, "Investing In America"---a conversation. The conversation evidently went, as they say, "rogue".

The New York Times said it, "sounded like a therapy session for disillusioned Obama supporters."

What The Times did not report was the rest of the comments made by the woman referenced above.

The African-American woman---a chief financial officer, a mother and a military veteran, continued saying,
"While I thought it wouldn't be a great measure, I would feel it in some small measure. I have two children in private school, and the financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family. My husband and I joked that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives. And quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring through that that might be where we're headed." She concluded, "And quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer honestly, is this my new reality?"

I have linked the entire text of the Town Hall meeting here.

"Is this my new reality?" Yes, under this administration.

A former law school classmate of President Obama, now working on Wall Street, said people there feel like the President is treating them like a pinata, "whacking us with a stick."

New reality. Whacking us with a stick.

A 30-year-old law school graduate told the President, "I was really inspired by you and your campaign and the message you brought, and that inspiration is dying away."

Then added,
"And I really want to know, is the American dream dead for me?"

Is this my new reality? You are whacking us with a stick. Is my American dream dead?

This and more from his hand selected audience of supporters who voted for him.

The Presidents' response:

"My goal here is not to convince you everything is where it needs to be." Good call. That would be impossible.

"But," said our President, "What I am saying is that we are moving in the right direction."

Are we?

Why are hundreds of thousands of Americans assembling publicly to protest his "right" direction?

Two things to take away from the Town Hall conversation.

First, a majority of Americans do not believe America should be "re-made" into a European type socialist nation. The President's policies are taking us there. Quickly.

Secondly, lets look at the one big "thing"---the crowning achievement of Obama's administration thus far.

Healthcare. The President and his staff are touting it as a great accomplishment and an affirmation that we are headed in the right direction.

The first 6 months has revealed glaring failures in his healthcare plan.

Emily Miller, senior editor at Human Events, wrote an article yesterday noting the, "Top 10 Failures Of Obamacare After Six Months." I have linked her detailed article. Her points are the following:

1. Premiums have gone up.

2. You can't keep your current plan or doctor.

3. National budget deficit worse.

4. More children uninsured.

5. Small business taxes increased.

6. Small business health care burden increased.

7. More government spending.

8. Senior citizens suffer from medicare cuts.

9. Minorities get worse health care.

10. Democrats are losing elections.

But then, one could see this "right direction" as the very vehicle that will help correct a horrible mistake we made in 2008.

Americans need wisdom and guidance as we approach the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Irving Berlin expressed it well in 1938. "God bless America, land that I love, stand beside her, and guide her, thru the night with a light from above."

The more pressing question is whether America will stand by God in these most trying, dark times.

I pray she will. May God Himself restore this land, giving light and wisdom from above as we walk through this present darkness.

Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Senate Refuses To Repeal "Don't Ask--Don't Tell"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The Senate dealt a significant blow yesterday afternoon to President Obama's attempt to repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military.

The vote was 56 to 43.

All Senate Republicans and 3 Democrats voted to keep the policy in place.

Harry Reid, realizing he would be unable to ram it through, was actually one of the three Democrats. Reid's vote allows him to bring the bill back at a later time. It also allows him to tell conservatives and people of faith he didn't vote for it as he promises homosexuals he will try to bring it back.

The bill could come back after the mid-term elections.

As you know, candidate Obama promised to abolish the military policy. He also promised to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Pentagon is currently conducting a survey to assess the impact on military personnel should the policy be repealed. The study is due December 1.

Thank you to all who called your Senator.

Even while the vote was under consideration yesterday,
Gen. James Amos, President Obama's choice to lead the Marine Corps, said he didn't think that Congress should lift the ban.

He told the Senate panel that he was concerned that unit morale could suffer. He also said the shake-up could become a distraction for the forces busy fighting in Afghanistan.

John McCain, no stranger to military service and strongly opposed to repealing the policy, said on the Senate floor last week, "I regret to see that the long-respected and revered Senate Armed Services Committee has evolved into a forum for a social agenda of the liberal left of the Senate."

It is further alarming to see there are those in the Senate willing to use our military for social experimentation and vote getting, even if many see it as compromising the mission of our armed forces.

By last night the blame had started.

Some are "blaming" Republicans for obstructing the repeal, but according to
POLITICO, "Most said the President didn't work hard enough to keep his campaign promise of repeal, and said Reid erred by rejecting Republican requests to allow the GOP to offer amendments to the bill."

Richard Socarides, who advised President Clinton on homosexual issues said, "This is a result of an across the board failure of leadership by the president, the Pentagon and the Congress."

It could be that Mr. Socarides is unaware that many people in this country believe that homosexual behavior is not normal behavior. Biblical teaching both condemns the behavior and offers deliverance from it. It is not a behavior that should be elevated or celebrated by the culture or the military.

Hopefully, there will be a good number of new lawmakers who hold these views, as well.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Thank you for
your support.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Obama Forgets To Credit "Creator" For Endowed Rights

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
American Family Association released a special alert last night regarding a vote today on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy. I have linked their alert. Please read and if possible call your elected representative immediately.

Much was made about the Obama family attending public services last Sunday. It was their first time since becoming President. The press covered it extensively.

Not so much coverage was given to the President's omissions the preceding Wednesday.

In the concluding remarks of his speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, he omitted the "Creator." Quoting one of the best known phrases in our Declaration of Independence, he reminded the audience they were "endowed with certain inalienable rights," but stopped short of saying the rights came from our "Creator".

Did he choose to skip the part about the "Creator" or simply forget?

Although he is a former constitutional law professor, let's say he forgot.

It was a slip of the tongue. Just like the time he accidentally
made reference to," my Muslim faith."

The sermon, incidentally, that the Obama's heard the following Sunday was from Luke, chapter 16, about one's inability to serve two masters.

Thomas McAdam with the Louisville Examiner wrote a little on this matter, concluding with this:

"One doesn't want to nit-pick. But nits, if left unaltered, mature into lice. And this nation doesn't need a lousy president."

Well said.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Truth And Consequences In The Biased Press

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Veteran news Anchorman, Doug McKelway, was fired this weekend by WJLA-TV 7 in Washington DC for telling the truth in a news report.

How things have changed.

Remember the old, "Truth or Consequences," radio, then TV show? I think it started in about 1940 on radio then continued on television until 1988. It's probably somewhere on re-runs.

The premise was if you couldn't answer the question correctly (tell the truth) then there were consequences.

Well, the new version of TV has a little different premise. If you tell the truth, there are consequences.

While many news agencies have reported this weekend that he was fired because of "insubordination" or "misconduct" involving an argument with his news producer, there is much more to the McKelway story.

Truth be told, it really relates to the fact that what he reported conflicted with the bias of the news division of WJLA that he worked for.

At the heart of the matter was a news report McKelway made this past summer during the height of the BP oil well problem. He was covering a poorly attended protest against BP in Washington DC.

The Washington Post, in their somewhat fair article this weekend, described it as follows:
"In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters 'largely representing far-left environmental groups.' He went on to say the protest, 'may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.'"

After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass "cap-and-trade" legislation this year because, "The Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then."

McKelway has previously accused the press of being biased or not balanced in their reporting.

And he should know. He comes from a long line of journalists in Washington DC. His grandfather, Benjamin, was the long time editor of the Washington Star; his great uncle, St. Clair, was a writer and editor for the New Yorker for 30 years and his late uncle John was a columnist with the Star and the Washington Times.

The parent company of WJLA -TV 7, Allbritton Communications, also owns POLITICO, among other news organizations.

I suspect this is a foreshadow of what is to come as the biased media seeks to impose itself on the upcoming mid-term elections and then elect or re-elect our next president.

One example from this weekend. Washington Post columnist, Colby King is defining exactly what Tea Party Members are about, their litmus tests, etc. on
Inside Washington TV show. Fortunately, Charles Krauthammer was on the panel and took Mr. Colby to school. Out loud and in front of everybody.

Telling the truth can have negative consequences in our current culture, because truth is now relative, so if your truth doesn't sync with the media truth, you have a problem. Stand in defense of marriage and you are attacked by the press. Quote biblical teaching on homosexual behavior and you are called a "bigot"---and worse. Tell the truth about global warming as a NASA employee---you're fired. Speak the truth about Islam, as Franklin Graham did a couple of years ago---you are mocked, marginalized and un-invited to a prayer service at the Pentagon.

This is a time for Christians and conservatives to be both informed and discerning.

Thank you for your support.

Be Aware. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Pervert On The Playground

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Kevin Jennings, President Obama's "Safe Schools Czar," was met with a firestorm of opposition and outrage last year when the President elevated him to that position, given his history and agenda.

It was publicized that Jennings' life work has been to advance the homosexual agenda---particularly among kids, and specifically in public education.

The public was made aware that Jennings had said, "Harry Hays always inspired me," had, when a young teenage boy reported to Jennings a sexual encounter he had had with an older man, simply asked the boy if he used a condom and had written the forward to a book titled, "The Queering Of Elementary Education," to name a few of his activities.

Although a year has passed and the outrage has wearied a bit, the President did not remove him from his position and life goes on---especially Jenning's life of indoctrinating children.

He has a mission---and it isn't "safe schools" as most of us would define "safe".

With this being the beginning of a new school year, one of our readers in the Tri-Cities sent me a note yesterday with a video of Jennings, 12 years ago at some kind of conference at Harvard, discussing the homosexual agenda and the path forward with the ultimate goal of integrating it into public school curriculum.

If you have children or grandchildren in public school or simply care about the kids, please take a
look at this video. You will see that they are on task with their mission.

I mentioned the late Harry Hays above. He was likely the best known and most effective advocate for sexual relations between men and boys. His name was synonymous with NAMBLA, the organization that publicly advocates for repeal of "age of consent" laws, but privately recruits and grooms little boys.

Jennings has said, "Harry Hays always inspired me."

Bob Hamer, a former FBI agent, infiltrated NAMBLA for about 3 years.

His comments about what he saw and learned helped to legally bring down several men and serves as a wake up for parents and others who are unaware. I have
linked a video of a conversation between Hamar and Hannity last year. It is not easy to watch, but, I believe, essential to your being informed.

Some have suggested that having Jennings as "Safe Schools Czar" is like having the fox guard the hen house.

I say it is more accurately like having, "A Pervert On The Playground."

We are aware that much rage will be directed toward us for writing this. However, if one parent is alerted, one child protected, it's well worth it.

Parents, please be vigilant. Know what your child is being taught. And again, please invest a few moments and watch the linked videos.

These are perilous times.

Be Prayerful. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Involved. Be Informed. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Lady Gaga Advises Sen. Harry Reid

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
With the worst economy since the Great Depression, unemployment high, financial forecasts pessimistic, the systematic dismantling of America under the guise of "remaking or transforming" it well under way, the redistribution of wealth in epic proportion in process, what do you suppose is on the mind of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

He has made the repeal of the military policy, "Don't Ask--Don't Tell," the only major piece of legislation his Senate will act on before the elections.

And singer Lady Gaga is on national television calling on Reid to repeal the policy, while she is twittering talking points with his staff.

Associated Press reported yesterday that Reid announced he has scheduled a vote on the policy next week.

The reason Reid's staff made the announcement was in an attempt to explain that Harry Reid does not, repeat, does not take his cues from Lady Gaga.

Gaga, appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres TV Show this past Monday, directly appealed to Harry Reid to repeal the "Don't Ask--Don't Tell" policy.

AP says, "Reid's campaign and Gaga traded talking points on Twitter after the lawmaker announced the vote."

Kelly Steele, Reid's campaign spokesman said, "Reid does not take cues from Gaga."

I'm sure glad we got that straightened out.

But who is Reid and the President taking cues from? Their recent policy actions clearly show it is not from the will of the American people.

And they are already creating a false urgency on this bill.

Politico is reporting Reid's intention, saying the majority leader has decided to move on the legislation that sets the annual military budget and policies---thus causing don't ask-don't tell legislation to, "Become a vehicle to begin to roll back the controversial 'Don't Ask--- Don't Tell' policy implemented during the Clinton administration."

Clearly Reid is highly motivated to get this done.

Homosexual activists, who helped carry Obama to the White House on their shoulders, have continuously expressed frustration and even anger toward the President for not doing enough, fast enough for them.

Ironically, the study on how altering the policy would affect troop morale is not even completed. While they have said the study will largely determine their actions, they are moving forward without benefit of the study.

Their actions suggest either the outcome of the study really doesn't matter or the outcome is pre-determined and the"fix" is in.

And they are doing so under the guise of "funding the military".

ABC News has said this, "will likely be the one major piece of legislation that the Senate tackles before the November mid-term elections."

This bill is not necessary to fund the military. The appropriations bill does that. I hope someone in Congress will stand up and say that out loud.

Polls show Reid is desperate. He needs votes.

He, the President, and the secular left are willing to use our military as a social experiment and lie to the public regarding the urgency of their actions, all to get the homosexual vote.

Armed Services Committee Chairman, Carl Levin, D-Mich., is trying not to
use the word "repeal". He says it's too strong.

He says, "There are a number of provisions in this bill I don't like," but, "We've got to get this bill to the floor."

Lies. Deception.

I would suggest rather than getting the vote to the floor, we sweep the floor of Congress. It is cluttered, it is soiled and it is corrupted.

God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.

financial support is needed at this time. I know you understand. Thank you so much.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Charlie Crist: Example Of What's Wrong In American Politics

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
As we carefully consider the candidates we should vote for in the upcoming election, there is at least one outstanding example of what we are not looking for.

That would be Charlie Crist, Governor of Florida, wanting to be a US Senator from Florida.

It's not that so many of our readers are from Florida, although some are, but the blaring example of duplicity and hypocrisy makes this candidate worth mentioning.

First, Crist was a Republican, saying he would never run as an Independent.

Then he said he would run as an Independent and would give back the donations given to him when he was a Republican. Later, he decided not to give them back. Then said he would---then wouldn't.

First he was pro-life. Then he decided he was not pro-life and as Governor, vetoed a bill that would have allowed an ultrasound before a woman's abortion.

He has said he is for Obamacare and said he opposes it.

In late August, he told Ed Henry at CNN that he believes we should, "live and let live," regarding the homosexual agenda, but that he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.

I think we've heard that line before here locally.

Now, the
Tampa Bay press is reporting that the Governor has once again morphed, announcing Monday that he affirms civil unions, adoption by homosexuals, and thinks the military policy of "don't ask---don't tell" should be abolished.

Equality Florida, the state's largest homosexual rights organization, called Crist's new identity, "The most comprehensive pro-LGBT equality stand of a sitting governor in Florida's history."

In 2006 Crist blasted his Democratic opposition, Jim Davis, for supporting homosexual adoption.
Who is this man?

I honestly don't know. What is clear is that he is whomever he thinks he needs to be to get elected.

Unfortunately, this is not a one-of-a-kind example. Wherever you live, there may well be those candidates who will say and do whatever they think necessary to win. And this kind of person usually communicates with a fair amount of passion because they really want the job, not because of deeply held beliefs.

This is not a partisan matter, but it is a matter of character, regardless of political party.

Samuel Adams, writing to James Warren on November 4, 1775, said,
"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a state than that all persons employed in public places of power and trust be men of exceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men."

This is a time to be "curious" concerning those running for office. We are finalizing information that will help you.

financial support is needed at this time. Thanks so much.

Be Curious. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Discerning Be Active. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Suicide In Oregon Spikes Following Legalized Euthanasia

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The Seattle Times editorial board met with candidates Dino Rossi and Patty Murray a few days ago. The Times board said they will decide which candidate to endorse after reviewing the interview. Why am I thinking that decision may already be made? I have linked the entire 1 -hour plus video interview. The first 5 minutes gives a clear picture of the differences between the candidates.

After decreasing in the 1990s, suicide rates in Oregon have spiked to 35% above the national rate---and that number does not include an additional 10% "assisted" suicides that have been redefined legally as "not" suicides.

While there may be other contributing factors, one cannot be ignored; the so-called "Death With Dignity" that became law in 1995. But the state does not even mention it in their
press release, titled, "Rising Suicide Rate In Oregon Reaches Higher Than National Average."

The state is so concerned, or embarrassed, they are now making recommendations as to how to reduce the number of "counted" suicides, including removal of guns from certain homes.

Washington State is traveling the same path, just a few years behind in the creation of a culture of death.

The state's recommendations and their moral authority to do so, is questionable, at best.

When Oregon first passed their assisted suicide legislation, for several years, published warm, empathetic reports of how people had been helped with an, "I told you the sky wouldn't fall like the people of faith and conservatives said it would" tone.

Many of the same arguments and affirmations were used a decade later in Washington to pass a similar law.

But over time, decisions have consequences.

Now, Oregon is expressing concern and is making recommendations in an attempt to reverse the dramatic increase in suicides in the state.

I believe only Oregon, Washington, Belgium, and The Netherlands has laws that specifically permit assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Washington will likely follow Oregon's trend in the coming years.

Among Oregon's recommendations:

*Universal depression screening by health care providers.

*Comprehensive suicide prevention education in public high schools. (I wonder what that will look like.)

*Remove guns from homes when a family member is suicidal.

How about removing lethal prescriptions?

By legalizing abortion on demand, now euthanasia on demand, teaching there is no God or if so He is irrelevant, no Creator, no personal destiny, no moral absolutes or consequences for behavior and actions, we create a culture of death---not life. Why would anyone who holds that worldview believe in the sanctity of life? They don't.

Can a state with pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia policies successfully advocate for life? Can it successfully advocate for suicide for some and not for others?


Will the pastors and faith activists speak out on this conflicting issue in the state of Oregon? I pray so.

God help us.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Vocal. Be Blessed.

Thanks for
your support of this ministry.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Burning Questions

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
As we move past the 9th anniversary of 9-11 and all the fiery threats and actions, Michelle Malkin says there is, "The Eternal Flame Of Muslim Outrage," and it will likely not end. An excellent column.

But there are other "Burning Questions" that must be answered.

One such question is, "Should those Republican candidates running for office step away from the so-called 'social' or moral issues of our day in order to be elected?"

Too many think they should. Our own Secretary of State is an advocate of this strategy. Other Republicans are joining the chorus, saying that for a candidate to win, they must move away from the "social" issues---the moral issues of life, marriage and religious freedom.

Ironically, while they are running away from the moral issues Republicans claim to represent,
Life News says, "After new reports surfaced showing Democrats essentially running away from the pro-abortion health bill they have passed, President Barack Obama's allies are searching for ways in which they can rally their voters based on promoting the government-run law that funds abortions."

So, Republicans are running away from the core values of their party, while Democrats are running from their anti-life, anti-marriage and anti-family record.

Haley Barbour, highly respected, professed pro-life, Mississippi governor and possible presidential candidate in 2012, told the Christian Science Monitor that social issues like abortion should be taken off the table while making the economy the main focus.

Despite the fact that polls show Americans strongly oppose the pro-abortion health care law just passed, Barbour says fiscal issues should take priority.

He said, "Any issue that takes people's eye off unemployment, job creation, economic growth, taxes, spending, deficits, debt, is taking your eye off the ball."

He said, discussing core values---like abortion, etc., causes a candidate to "run down rabbit trails" wasting valuable resources "that could be used to talk to people about what they care about."

Barbour said a candidate's stance on abortion, "Ain't going to change anybody's vote."


So, in the 2010 and 2012 elections, we are choosing who can best disguise who they really are and what they really believe and stand for.

Have we sunk that low?

At least 2 Republican candidates for state seats here in Washington have told me they are trying to avoid taking a position on these issues. Both say managers and consultants are advising them.

At a time when Barack Obama's army, a.k.a. Organizing For America,
has all but vanished, shrinking from 6000 paid staff and 8 million volunteers to 300 staff nationwide, and wide spread donor depression, we are pretending to be someone and something else.

It is well known that America is deeply divided on the issues of abortion, homosexual marriage and religious freedom.

But is the Republican Party, the party entrusted to be guardian and defender of moral values, now divided over whether to speak publicly about these issues?

Jesus taught a principle saying, "Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." (Matthew 12: 25 NKJ)

I was wondering if I was the only one who was concerned about this until I read Chuck Colson's column Friday. He is very concerned. We should all be concerned. And should express our concern.

Colson said Friday, "The Republican leaders, you see, are so confident they can sweep back into power by focusing only on economic issues, that they are ready to promote an election agenda that ignores the party's historical commitment to life, marriage and religious liberty."

"I believe that we as Christians," Colson said, "need to tell them they are dead wrong."

He said the church can never be captive to a political agenda and we must never put our hope in any political party.

"They must realize," Colson said, "our allegiance is not to their party, but those causes that promote the common good."

He and many others believe our economic collapse is a result of our moral and ethical collapse.

I have said many times that you cannot teach kids relativism----no absolutes, no God, no right and wrong, no sanctity of life and expect to produce a generation of moral and ethical people. People who believe and practice those teachings are a law unto themselves.

Colson says, and I agree, "No society that rejects the moral good can possibly stay solvent."

The price tag for moral corruption is very, very high.

So are we to simply take the moral equation out of the election process? I don't think so.

Colson suggests and I am asking you to call your state congressman and senators, republican and Democrats alike.

You can find your elected officials on our Faith and Freedom website by
clicking here.

Tell them, respectfully, that you support the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious freedom. Then tell them you vote.

Also call or email the following with the same message.

Representative John Boehner’s office: Phone number (202) 225-6205

Representative Eric Cantor’s office: Phone number (202) 225-2815.

This is a battle worth fighting.
Your financial support allows us to continue. Thank you.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Heard. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Islam's Big Lie

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
While the name of the proposed Ground Zero mosque continues to evolve---Cordoba House, Park 51 Project, Community Center, did I hear Interfaith Center? One thing is certain' people have strong feelings about it.

Should those strong feelings result in burning Korans? No. I don't think that is a proper response. While it is an exercise of freedom and an expression of outrage in general, it is not the right thing to do. A child's tantrum gets a lot of attention, but rarely gets the desired results.

However, appeasement is also not the appropriate response. Early America learned that lesson from the Barbary Wars and the action we finally took is referenced in the Marine Corps Hymn which begins with the verse, "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli."

There is a long history of Muslims building mosques as something other than merely a place to worship. There is also theological justification for lying to "infidels" while they do it.

America's first national encounter with Islam was when hostile Muslim-Arab pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa, without provocation, attacked and ransomed ships from Europe and the United States. Sidi Haji Abdrahaman used quotes from the Koran as he explained the actions to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in the meeting in France. ("Jefferson, American Minister In France", p. 413, The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 30, Issue 180, October 1872)

The US was paying up to $1 million annually to ensure safe passage until 1801 when Jefferson refused to continue payments. The Barbary Wars followed, which culminated in the US naval attack of Algiers.

Before this encounter and since, history records the ultimate goals of Islam as being conversion through outreach, force and subjugation, and death and destruction when necessary.

Muslim warriors have laid waste the monuments and sacred places of non-Islamic cultures, often using as building materials the rubble of temples, churches, synagogues and cemeteries they destroyed. The magnitude of destruction they inflicted on the Hindu population of India affected the Indian culture for generations. In fact the first mosque they built in India was likely built on the site of the ancient Jain temple.

Muslims converted churches to mosques as they overran Europe, long before the Crusades. They built mosques over Jewish holy sites including Rachel's tomb, the Cave of Machpelah and most significantly, the standing remains of the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Dome of The Rock, as they call their temple site mosque, was not built there because of any special significance in Islamic tradition. The Koran doesn't even mention the holy city Jerusalem.
The mosque was built there to show the Jewish people as subjects in their own land.


The same compelling reason caused Islam to rebuild the Church of St. John in Damascus as a mosque in 705 and prompted the Taliban to destroy ancient Buddhist shrines in Afghanistan in 2001.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of Muslim triumphalism is found in the current situation in Nazareth.

The city, the largest Christian city in Israel, although it has a Muslim majority, is dominated by the black domed Basilica of the Annunciation---the largest Christian church in the Middle East. On December 21, 1997, Muslims erected a fence at the foot of the Basilica and declared it "waqf" (Muslim holy endowment). They constructed a large tent as a provisional mosque and demanded permits for the construction of a permanent mosque with a 86 meter tall minaret, which would dwarf the Basilica. It was reported that once the tent mosque was established, the Muslims proclaimed from loud speakers that anyone who wants to be certain in his life after death must convert to Muslim and if you don't get on the Islam train you're "done for."

Will the "Cordoba House"/mosque/whatever, become what the tent in Nazareth has become? A way to intimidate American infidels and serve as the symbol of Islamic supremacy and triumphalism? Does this same motivation now compel them to build a "Cordoba House" at Ground Zero?

And exactly who is going to be funding the "Cordoba House"?

Does common sense, given the history of Islam, suggest that this Muslim Center, whatever it is called, would be tantamount to planting an enemy's flag at a military cemetery where the battle dead are buried?

Evidently Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and others who support the building of the mosque at Ground Zero are ignoring the Muslim practice of taqiyya, as well as history itself.

Taqiyya and kitman are Muslim practices, taught in the Koran, to conceal the real intentions of Muslims while they are living in an "infidel" land. We call it telling a lie.

Christians and Jews are guided by ethical principles---Judeo-Christian principles, that consider lying to be a sin. Muslim theology teaches that lying against unbelievers or infidels, is a virtue.

Americans familiar with history, understand that the significance of the initial choice to call the mosque "Cordoba House" relates directly to the great mosque built in Spain following the Muslim conquest that was called "Cordoba House".

Cordoba House was built on the foundations of a Christian cathedral.

Mayor Bloomberg said recently, in defending the building of the mosque, "Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam."


Joseph Puder, in his column, "
Deadly Deceit," describing taqiyya says, "Mayor Bloomberg of New York and President Obama have either opted to ignore the Islamic practice of taqiyya ...or are simply blissfully ignorant of them."

Mayor Bloomberg's statement is equivalent to a European leader who once met with Hitler at a train station, returned home, and told his countrymen, "everything is under control."

Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Test Case For Religious Freedom In America?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Nihad Awad, the director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has said that the Mosque at Ground Zero controversy is, "a test case for religious freedom."

He said, "It's now a litmus test, a test case for religious freedom in America."

But is it really a test case for religious freedom in America or a clever way to deflect the debate and re-frame the discussion?

I think it's the latter and our President, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg and other high profile politicians who support the building of the Mosque-community center-Cordoba House-Park 51 Project or whatever you choose to call it, are either ignorant to the ways of Islam or worse, don't care.

I want to share why I believe this is not a test of religious freedom in America in 2 parts. Today, the difference between freedom of religious belief and freedom of religious practice of those beliefs. Tomorrow, I will continue with why this mosque controversy is a matter of deceit, not religious freedom, with examples from Nazareth to New York.

First, religious belief vs. religious practice.

Secular progressives, in their rush to appear "tolerant," "fair," "sensitive," and even "Christian" fail to acknowledge that the conflict between Islam's stated goals and those of western culture constitutes a clash of civilizations.

Jihad seeks to replace democratic values with theocratic rule.

The real question must be, "Is freedom of religion in America absolute?"

Can the rights of one religion in America be limited when they infringe on the rights of others?

If we simply define the New York mosque as a dispute over religious freedom, the mosque promoters and their allies are completely controlling the conversation and misleading Americans into choosing between 2 false choices---death by sword or death by cannon.

I have heard no critic of the mosque deny that Muslims are free to worship in America.

The real issue involves respecting the priorities and beliefs of a host society, that from our founding has welcomed and accommodated a diverse display of religious beliefs. It involves an understanding of what Ground Zero represents in our free society and to those who lost family and loved ones on that spot.

Those who oppose the mosque and terrorism for that matter, are often called racist. It's important to remember that Islam is a religion---not a race, ethnicity, or natural origin. Therefore, it should not be given greater rights or privileges than any other belief system in America.

Although secular progressives like President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Bloomberg and others cite the Constitution to justify their perverted political correctness, the First Amendment does not mandate acquiescence to religious extremism.

So, as with other Constitutional rights, freedom of religion is not absolute in America.

We are not a theocracy, nor should we ever become one.

Addressing these issues are both difficult and complex---never simple or easy. But to make sense of the mosque controversy, we must look at the realities of how freedom works in America today. Whether you agree is yet another question.

Over the past 20 or more years, there has been a
number of court cases brought against the "Followers of Christ" church in a suburb of Portland, Oregon.

Members of the church believe in divine healing administered by the laying on of hands and prayer, and do not believe in any medical assistance from a doctor.

Their county district attorney has aggressively and successfully prosecuted church members who have failed to provide necessary medical care to their children as required under Oregon law.

I have
linked a recent story, which also gives you a background on the situation, going back to the early 1990's.

Personally, I believe in divine healing. I believe God may heal someone instantaneously as Scripture teaches. I believe in miracles. I also believe that God has given us the gift of medical science. Whether healing takes place as a result of prayer only, or through the hands of a physician, it is none the less a miracle from God.

My point, however, is that the people of this particular church have the freedom to believe as they do, however, they do not have the freedom to practice that belief when it results in harming a child.

White supremacists have the freedom to meet in their "churches" and hold certain beliefs, but they are not free to practice certain of their beliefs.

Polygamists are free to believe in multiple wives as a religious belief, however, that practice is not allowed under American law. At least not at this time.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the freedom to preach hate toward America, but if that belief is acted upon in a way that directly violates the rights of others or harms them, it is not acceptable.

No, the Mosque--Cordoba House--Park51 Project---community center, or whatever you choose to call it, should not be built within steps of Ground Zero.

But it is not a litmus test of freedom of religion in America.

Matthew Hausman has written extensively on this subject. I have
linked it for your convenience.

If the government can limit how other religious communities can use property or express themselves when public safety and welfare of others are said to be at risk, how do the secular progressives and secular socialists justify not applying the same standards to Islam wanting to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

It's curious that these supporters---Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg and others, are among the first to proclaim from the mountain top, their commitment to freedom of religion, yet display contempt for any perceived encroachment of Christianity into secular society. They condemn the Mormon Church and other churches for their deep commitment to Proposition 8 in California, in defense of marriage. They publicly deride pro-life evangelicals and others for their belief in the sanctity of life and their opposition to abortion. Yet they promote a secular statism in which religious expression is, at best, marginalized.

Should Muslims somehow be regarded differently?

The Question:

If the government can limit how other religions can use their property or express themselves, how do liberal progressives justify not applying the same standards when discussing Islamism?

The Answer:

They don't justify it. They just do it---because it's politically correct. And they are in the majority.

Tomorrow: The Big Lie and How Islam Explains It.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Gore School On Contaminated Soil

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Sometimes you just can't win.

Al Gore has blamed his failed attempt to become president as a contributing factor to his recent divorce. And the fiasco in Copenhagen this past year gave Gore's Green Movement a red face.

Now, next Monday, about 675 students will open the new Carson-Gore Academy of Environmental Sciences on polluted soil.

The soil under the new public school is contaminated by a dozen or so storage tanks. Ground water at 45 feet below the surface is also contaminated, but officials say there should be no risk to students or faculty.

John Sterritt, the school's chief safety officer told The
LA Times, "Everything's under control after the $4 million cleanup."

But more than a few are concerned that the pollution sources have not been adequately identified and dirty water under the ground will re-contaminate the soil.

And about the name.

Well, the first name, Carson, is in honor of the late author Rachel Carson, who is generally credited with helping to launch the modern environmental movement.

A committee member had previously suggested the school be named after folk singer and activist Pete Seeger. However, some board members objected due to Seeger's affiliation with the communist party.

"Carson-Gore" was unanimous.

But does Al Gore know about this? Is he okay with it?

Well, Gore is on vacation and can't be reached but school principal Kurt Lowry pointed out that no one obtained Barack Obama's permission when they named a middle school after him.

Gore will be invited to the official ribbon cutting ceremony in October.

The school's emphasis includes recycling projects, environmental research, beach cleanups and climate study.

I suspect the climate change curriculum will be based on the very research that vaporized into ashes at last years Copenhagen world climate change summit.

Not only will this become a neat little tax payer funded social experimental laboratory, producing the next far left global warming /climate change / green activists, but it will also be sustainable.

That's right. Principal Lowry says he envisions an organic garden that will produce a student led farmer's market.


Robin Suwol, who heads the locally based California Safe Schools coalition, says Lowry's vision sounds "incredibly wonderful," but would feel better, "if the vegetables were grown in planters above ground."

Many Americans would feel better if the cap and trade-green movement would also be grown in planters above ground rather than smoke filled backrooms so we as taxpayers could better defend ourselves against the next round of wealth redistribution and the further dismantling of our republic under the guise of "saving the planet."

America needs a new quarter-back.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, September 03, 2010

Faith and Freedom Alert

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Washington Senate: Rossi (R) 48% Murray (D) 46%

In Washington State, the U.S. Senate race remains one of the closest in the country. The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state shows Republican challenger Dino Rossi attracting 48% of the vote while Democratic Senator Patty Murray earns support from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer a different candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Most people are sensing that something is very wrong in our country and culture---socially, fiscally and even morally.

As we approach the 2010 elections, people who care are looking for solutions. Hundreds of thousands gather in Washington DC because they care and millions of Americans are evaluating candidates who are asking for their vote. We all know the 2010 and the 2012 election is a defining time in American history. It is a crossroads unlike any of us have faced in our lifetime. The stakes are incredibly high.

Faith and Freedom is very focused on getting people the kind of information that will help them be informed and hopefully, inspire and motivate them to vote.

I, and our board of directors, believe that the root of the problems we face in our country and our communities, is primarily a moral, not a political one. In addressing the political opportunities of this election, we must include a moral---a right and wrong, component.

There are voices who seek to mislead, suggesting that social issues should not be a public consideration in voting. And if a candidate makes them an issue, or takes a moral stand, it will result in loosing the election.

Not all Republicans should be endorsed and not all Democrats should be opposed.
Discernment is a gift. We must use it.

Recently, Steve Litzow (R) who is running for state senate in the 41rst District was endorsed by some on our side.

Steve Litzow serves on a state NARAL board. Does that represent your values?

When the "everything but marriage"--SB 5688 vote was taken last year, 3 Senate Republicans broke from their Republican colleagues and pro-marriage citizens and voted to advance the homosexual agenda. Cheryl Pflug, 5th District, Dale Brandland, 42nd District and Curtis King, 14th District voted against the defense of marriage and for the homosexual agenda to redefine marriage.

Circulating that kind of straight forward information often draws sharp criticism and personal attack both from within and from without.

I know these are difficult financial times for most all of us. However, I need your help.

To get this kind of straight forward, no nonsense information into the public takes considerable effort and a little money.

To complete our efforts to educate and inform the public, we need additional funds now.

In addition to the materials we are creating, we plan to purchase material from David Barton that addresses the biblical mandate for Christian involvement in voting. We want to circulate this to help inspire people to get involved, get registered and vote.

We need several thousand dollars additional this month for these purposes.

Whatever you can do will help tremendously. I know you understand and know if we didn't need it, we wouldn't ask.

You can
donate online here or mail a check to Box 399, Bellevue, WA. 98009. This is for educational purposes. Your donation is tax deductible.

Thank you so much.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed. Be a Blessing.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Two Questions Regarding Issues in WA Public Schools

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Public school has begun in Washington State this week. Two issues have arisen in specific schools that we are asking our readers to weigh in on. This site has a significant and diverse readership. Your opinion will have perhaps more influence than you might imagine.

Please take a moment, familiarize yourself with the conflicts, then
vote in our poll. Your opinion will be helpful.

Question #1. Concerns the matter of Mick Moulton, a teacher at Morton Jr. High School.

KOMO news reported yesterday that Moulton has failed to report to class each of the first three days this week.

In 1997 some female students said Moulton inappropriately touched them. Court documents show more complaints were filed in 2005. A discipline letter was sent to him. There were more complaints in 2008.

Subsequently, Moulton, 56, was convicted of inappropriately touching four girls in 2008 and served 16 days in Lewis County Jail. He was accused of touching the girls on the back or shoulder. He said they were pats of encouragement.

Superintendent Tom Manke fired him.

A judge has now ruled that the teacher can't be fired for that and cleared him to return to his classroom at Morton Jr. High this year.

During the first three days, parents have pulled their kids from his classes. When he returns, he will have only 22 students in his 6 scheduled classes.

Randy Dorn, Washington School Superintendent, has stepped in to determine whether Moulton should be teaching.

The State's consideration is underway during the next couple of weeks.

What do you think they should do?
Please vote in our poll.

Question #2. Concerning the school seizing student cell phones if there is probable cause the kids are bulling through texting.

Last year at
Oak Harbor High School, 4 students were bullying and threatening a fellow student through texting. There was apparently no physical contact.

This year, Oak Harbor School District has proposed a new policy that will allow the school district to seize a student's cell phone if there is probable cause that they are using it to bully.

The ACLU of Washington says the school can't do that without a parent's permission.

Ironically, a school can facilitate a student getting an abortion during class time without parental notification or permission. Ballard High School--last school year.

The Oak Harbor School board is considering the matter at this time.

What do you think they should do?

Please read the links on both these stories, take a moment and
vote in our poll.

If you have further comments, you can make them on "comments" section of this blog.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Vocal. Be Prayerful.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Obama Administration Withholds Study On Abstinence

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
A federally funded survey on abstinence was completed by Abt Associates on February 26, 2009.

Only after intense pressure by a University of Northern Colorado professor and several others was the study finally released last week---August 23, 2010.

After using tax payer money to conduct the study, why did the Obama administration refuse to release it for a year and a half?

As usual, the government has made a bureaucratic explanation of sorts, but the facts are pretty clear, that the Obama Administration wasn't pleased with some of the findings.

Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC said, "I think this study is an embarrassment for the Obama Administration, because it offers significant support for the type of abstinence education that they have stopped funding."

He also noted, "I think it's shameful that they repressed the report and failed to release it for a year and a half."

CNS NEWS has written an in depth article which chronicles the steps that led to the government finally releasing the study to the public. It's fascinating. I have linked the CNS story above. The CNS story has a link to a pdf of the entire study if you want to check it out.

Although the study is substantial, the essence of the study is built around the survey asking American parents and adolescents whether they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that, "Having sexual Intercourse is something only married people should do."

They found 70% of American parents and 53.5% of American adolescents believe sex before marriage is wrong.

Here's the breakout:

CNS reports that among parents, 47.6% strongly agreed, 22.2% somewhat agreed, while 17.8% somewhat disagreed and 12.3% strongly disagreed.

CNS reports that among adolescents, 38.5% strongly agreed and 23.0% somewhat agreed, while 21.5% somewhat disagreed and 17.1% strongly disagreed.

Other findings in the study were:

*Students involved in abstinence education programs were more likely to communicate with their parents about such topics.

*Kids prefer to hear about sex from mom and dad.

*Brief and substantive talks by parents are more effective.

*Religious participation has a powerful influence on attitudes toward abstinence and pre-martial sex.

*The study provided proof that a strong majority of American families support the abstinence until married message.

When President Obama presented his first budget for 2010, he specifically noted that he wanted to eliminate all funds for abstinence education.

In the past both Democrat and Republican presidents have supported abstinence education.

Clearly, this is one more issue where he is out of step with a majority of both parents and youth, based on a study his own people administrated.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.