Monday, February 28, 2011

President Obama--"The Gay Community Got To Him"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The New York Times is addressing the implication of President Obama's recent action to undermine marriage, even though many socially conservative leaders are skipping the whole matter for "more important issues."

And the Times is pointing out that the Bush and Cheney family is helping in the effort to redefine marriage.

The New York Times reported this weekend that President Obama's decision to abandon natural marriage and his legal defense of DOMA---the Defense of Marriage Act, which is federal law, has "Generated only mild rebukes from Republicans hoping to succeed him in 2012."

Sad, but apparently true.

They say, in the hours that followed Obama's announcement to abandon DOMA and natural marriage, "Sarah Palin's Facebook site was silent," Mitt Romney, "was close mouthed," "Tim Pawlenty released a web video---on the labor union protests in Wisconsin--- and waited a day before issuing a marriage statement saying he was 'disappointed.'" Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour took their time weighing in "and then did so in the most tepid terms."

The Times gleefully reported that Mitch Daniels, who earlier called for social conservatives to take a "time-out" on such moral issues as marriage and abortion then said he was misunderstood, told the press through his spokesman that he would not be commenting on the issue at all. "With other things we have going right now, he has no plans to comment," his office said.

No comment.

The Times says Obama has been emboldened by the largely positive response to his recent and successful push for Congress to repeal "Don't ask---Don't tell".

Did any potential political candidate speak out against the President's action?


Mike Huckabee said the administration's decision was "utterly inexplicable."


My point is not to promote Huckabee but to point out the silence---deafening silence of those who seek to lead the nation by obtaining the votes of people of faith and social conservatives by assuring us they are one of us, while acting as though fiscal issues are far more important and unrelated to moral issues.

The Times concluded, to no one's surprise, "Although President Obama drew much criticism from gay rights advocates during his first two years for dragging his feet on their most important issues, they now see him shifting his positions as he looks at the 2012 elections."

And they and the homosexual activists think that is a good thing.

"The President," the Times says, "has calculated that the benefits of responding to his base out weigh the risks of upsetting conservatives who wouldn't vote for him anyway."

The President has said his views on homosexual marriage are "evolving."

Relativism is a wonderful thing for someone who lacks core beliefs beyond their own personal ambitions.

Win-Win, as they say.

Some Republicans believe if they abandon the "social" moral issues for a while, they might win an election because they are neutral on moral issues. Do they not know that many social conservatives and people of faith will not vote for them for that very reason? Do they think far left secular progressives will pass on a candidate who embodies their secularist views and is now doing their biding, to vote for a Republican, possibly a former socially conservative Republican?

I'm not sure why Palin was silent, she is generally very strong on moral and social issues but Barbour, Daniels and others are not only practicing silence, but advocating silence on what many of us believe to be eternal principles and the basis for the blessing and prosperity America has experienced.

While President Obama and his far left, secularist base "remake" America, we are to remain silent on moral issues in hopes that we can sneak in a win.

The founder of a pro-homosexual activist website, who had previously called Obama's actions or lack thereof, "despicable" and "homophobic," now says he is "much happier."

He told the Times, "I think the gay community got to him."

Probably. Or did he believe in homosexual marriage all along. Was he playing us---or them? And who got to the Republicans? The gay activists?

He has "calculated the benefits."

Some take away thoughts:

* The press will continue to find, report and support those who subscribe to the "social and moral issues aren't important" plan being put forward by some Republican leaders.

* Some, maybe many, Republican candidates will try to duplicate the very thing Obama seems to be doing. Saying he supports marriage as between a man and a woman, while stepping out of the way of those who seek to override federal law and destroy the institution itself.

*President Obama will continue to "wrestle" and "grapple" with the question of homosexual "marriage" while he stokes the fire of homosexual activism, while they seek to re-define marriage, the family and the culture itself.

*By election time Obama's view of marriage will have "evolved" to conclude that homosexual marriage is the only "fair" thing to do.

*How much "evolution" of morality will you accommodate? How much silence will you consent to? How much compromise will you allow a candidate, for the sake of maybe winning, on fundamental moral issues?

*Washington State will very likely have opportunity to make that decision regarding the next Governor's race. While he "charms the church" through those who crave a seat at the table, social and moral conservatives will be told how this candidate is their candidate. We have seen this before. You will see it again.

God help us if we choose politics over principles.

Does integrity in an elected official matter? Do moral principles matter?

Be Vigilant. Be Very Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Very Discerning.

Thank you for standing for what is right.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Obama Now Sole Arbiter Of Law?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Apparently, he thinks he is. At least on the issue of marriage.

I'm wondering why we have courts if the President himself can decide which federal laws should be defended and which federal laws should not be defended by the executive branch.

Jim Campbell with the Alliance Defense Fund told the
Washington Times, "Typically when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically, they do so with the most vigorous possible defense. In this case we've seen executive branch officials refuse to do so."

President Obama has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas,
called the President's action, "A transparent attempt to shrink the Department's duty to defend the laws passed by Congress."

He said, "The vast majority of American people believe that the preservation of marriage between a man and a woman is critical to society's stability and in the best interest of American families."

Smith said yesterday, "It is not the role of the courts to redefine that institution [marriage] and impose it on American society. The people alone---through their elected representatives---have that role and responsibility. And the President and his administration are duty bound to defend those laws in court."

The President seems to be duty bound to nothing more than attempting to "remake" America.

Jordan Sekulow told CNS News, "My guess is that this was decided long ago to make it more difficult for members of Congress to obtain counsel to defend it", suggesting that the President orchestrated the timing, waiting as long as possible before abandoning his duty."

Obama's spokesman is telling the press that the President is "grappling" with what he believes about homosexual marriage. Last week the President was said to be "wrestling" with what he believes.

While the President is "grappling" and "wrestling" he is, in what seems to be a very calculated way, undermining not only the process, but marriage itself, allowing himself the opportunity to agree with those who defend marriage and those who seek to redefine and destroy it. He loves and agrees with everybody.

His spokesman also told the press, "The administration will do everything it can do to assist Congress if it so wishes to do that."

This is a time that I feel your US Representative and Senators need to hear from you on this matter. Please
contact them and tell them you strongly support DOMA. I understand Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are on board with the President and his abolishing of DOMA, however, contact their office anyway.

Please take a moment and be heard on this matter.

Thank you.

Be Informed. Be Vocal. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Breaking News: Obama Will No Longer Defend Marriage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The Justice Department announced this afternoon that President Obama will no longer defend natural marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In doing so he is abandoning both marriage itself and any pretense of support he may have had toward natural marriage between one man and one woman.

He and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, now believe the law is unconstitutional.

The President says he believes Congress enacted DOMA for "moral" reasons, he will no longer support it, and he believes the moral position of DOMA amounts to "animus" toward homosexuals.

One wonders how he will look at other laws based on morality.

Congress, as the author of DOMA, can defend the law in court, but President will not.

Are all laws based on morality now unconstitutional?

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Flood of Hypocrisy Nearing Flood Stage

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
There is an urgent need to find higher ground as the flow of hypocrisy and deception nears flood stage in our culture.

Wisconsin, Planned Parenthood and Washington State Rep. Eileen Cody, all give us a glimpse of the rising tide of hypocrisy and deceit.

In Wisconsin, public schools are failing while the teachers are demanding more. Two-thirds of 8th graders, for example, are unable to read proficiently, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more money per pupil than any other state in the Mid-West.

Take-away thoughts:

Don't mess with the NAE and its local affiliates. They are busing in protesters and agitators from all over the country, joining in with the locals to appear and sound more daunting and intimidating toward the Governor who is attempting to keep his campaign promise to bail out his state and balance the state budget.

Give us more money, public education demands. The Governor asks that teachers pay a fraction of their own pension and health-care costs, they say they have a right not to pay.

"He's trying to break the unions," they say. One wonders if the unions are not about to break the state and all the folks who send in their money to Madison each year---and pay a good part of their own health-care costs---and contribute to their own retirement pension---if they even have one.

"We are failing at what we are paid to do, so give us more money and power."

Hypocrisy nearing flood stage.

Planned Parenthood, caught time and time again in unacceptable and likely illegal practices--most recently, the pimp and the illegal alien underage girls he sells, are now feeling the heat---at least a little heat.

The US House of Representatives has voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. However PP has an ace or two in their pocket---at least for now.

They don't think the Senate will pass the bill to de-fund them. Why? Because we were unable to elect a majority of pro-life senators last election. And Planned Parenthood and their affiliates such as NARAL, etc., own too big a share of the pro-abortion lawmaker's careers.

Too many states did what Washington State did last November in opting for ultra liberal, pro-abortion Senator Patty Murray.


Planned Parenthood has a very carefully crafted false image of who and what they really are.

That image is well represented in a national article carried recently in
The Seattle Times titled "Foes Seek To De-Fund, Discredit Planned Parenthood."

While the article gives the appearance of balance, it isn't. You can read it.

The purpose of the article is to put forth the idea that while conservatives may think PP is a criminal organization, their efforts to de-fund them is really an attack on minorities and the poor. They say this attempt, "Attacks the ability of American women to get reproductive health services they deserve."

Not to worry that some of those desiring "health care services" could be illegal underage aliens who are being prostituted by a pimp who needs abortions and "health care" without anyone knowing about it.

Planned Parenthood's response: "No problem."

The Media's response: "Planned Parenthood's national office notified the FBI before any videos...were released."


After Planned Parenthood discovered what had happened, just days before the release of the videos which we published here, they contacted the FBI attempting to save face and possibly much more.

This particular article mentions Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, because they can no longer avoid it, but wraps her in mystery and intrigue as to what she really believed and was trying to accomplish, stating that she in fact was pro-life or not pro-abortion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have
written on this with documentation.

The article in the Times is an example of the media's selective reporting under the guise of balanced news and failing to report that which may restrict their march toward unrestrained secularism.

And then there's Washington State.

Representative Matt Shea proposed a bill, HB 1442, this session that would simply require that parents be notified if their underage daughter was seeking an abortion. Parental Notification.

Representative Eileen Cody, chair of the Healthcare and Wellness Committee, would have none of it. She told the ranking Republican on the committee that she believes girls over the age of 14 who become pregnant are considered "emancipated---independent."

She killed the bill. And in doing so said "no" to parents and their rightful authority. Yet she, the Governor and others continue their drumbeat of how they want to "help families."


Representative Shea said he thought it was shameful that the public was not even given an opportunity to testify on the issue.

Shameful, indeed.

Governor Gregoire is fond of saying something may happen, "if the creek don't rise." I know that old phrase, we used it in the Yakima Valley as well.

However, this rising creek may have more implication than merely changing a plan. It may well change direction in the culture. As the overflow of deception and hypocrisy reaches flood stage in our culture, even liberal, so-called progressive states may awaken to the need for a flotation device, better known as a fiscal and social conservative.

God help us. May we be ready when our time comes. And I believe it will come.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, February 21, 2011

President's Day

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
A Rasmussen Survey out today finds 37% of Americans consider Ronald Reagan to be the most influential president of the past half century, with JFK a distant 2nd with 21% and Clinton with 17%.

There is, however, one president that most all Americans believe to be the most influential of all---for all kinds of reasons.

Stephanie Wilson has written an interesting and informative blog on this man. I encourage you to read it.


President's Day

As most of us are aware by simply scanning our email inbox and all the "President's Day Sales" advertised there, Monday is President's Day. A day we hopefully set aside every third Monday of February. This is the day America historically commemorated Washington's birthday.

And while we celebrate all of our American presidents on this day, we specifically remember one of the greatest pivotal figures in our united history, George Washington. A man that by his very word motivated and moved a group of peasant revolutionaries to successfully battle the strongest, most organized, most well-funded army in the world at that time, Great Britain. And by so doing, helped to create a culture of freedom and democracy that to this day, stands without measure.

Washington was a man who was very much human ... very much like many of us. A man not brought up in privilege, a man who could have dramatically changed America as we know it simply by virtue of an unrestrained ego. And to many in the colonies, the rise of this man and installment of a new American monarchy would have been accepted. But through providential design, Washington's convictions and ideals and those of our framers outweighed what could have been a human response to success and victory. And instead of installing himself as king, he insisted upon presidency.

And so on April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office and set in place a new country ... and a new way of life. A new land where people from privilege or not, from the north or the south, or the east or the west, from varying points of view, with God at its center, were granted inalienable rights - with freedom at its core.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence.
Washington would serve two terms as our first U.S. president, from 1789 to 1797.

Now, for more than 200 years, U.S. presidents and their families have resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., in a sandstone mansion known as the White House. It has 132 rooms, 412 doors, 28 fireplaces—and not a single throne.

For a fabulous and moving 2-minute video on the life of George Washington, click

Help your children experience history by creating a patriot village made from pretzels. For instructions, click

Image source: History Channel

Friday, February 18, 2011

Justin Bieber: "I Really Don't Believe In Abortion"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, teen heart throb Justin Bieber says, "I really don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby."

Bieber is featured on the cover of today's issue of Rolling Stone.

While Bieber is featured, his comment about abortion is not. However, they did print it. Other comments, more in line with the social positions of Hollywood and the Magazine itself are highlighted and called out in the feature.

I suspect some one will take young Bieber to the proverbial "politically correct" woodshed over the comment.

And speaking of killing babies...

The National Black Pro-Life Coalition
say they have had enough of what they call a, "continued epidemic of abortion in the black community."

"We will not accept the status quo that endangers black children up to 3X more than the majority population," they say.

They also report that in New York City, more black children are aborted than are born alive. They say 53% of all black pregnancies end in abortion.

"This," they say, "is not freedom, it is genocidal oppression."

Their plan is to hold peaceful and prayerful gatherings in cities across the nation on February 28. I have linked their
website, the list of cities is posted.

The gatherings are defined as a time of "Mourning" for the lives of black children and others that are lost to the barbarous ritual of so-called "choice" and "rights".

Their words: "In peaceful and prayerful gatherings we will condemn the continuation of racism and eugenics that specifically target the black community."

The word eugenics brings to mind Planned Parenthood, America's biggest and most aggressive abortion business.

It also brings to mind the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.

Our black brothers and sisters quote Lamentations 3:48, "Tears stream from our eyes because of the destruction of our people."

But not everyone is shedding tears.

Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist, and founder of Planned Parenthood said in, "An Autobiography," (p.194) her life's work is to promote birth control.


Because eugenicists believe we should, "prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," (Dr. Ernst Rudin, April 1933, in the "Birth Control Review). Margaret Sanger was the editor.

One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. "The Problem of Race Regeneration," by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in "Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society," p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. "The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis," by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88.

Linda Gordon in, "Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control In America," quotes Margaret Sanger, "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

The word is out, MS. Sanger.

How do pro-abortion advocates and supporters of Planned Parenthood malign our white Founding Fathers for slavery on one hand and work 24/7 on the other, advancing the killing of babies who are disproportionately black---advancing the work and mission of Margaret Sanger and other eugenicists, primarily through Planned Parenthood?

When you file your tax returns, think about this: You are funding the mission of Planned Parenthood. And you will continue to do so until we elect a majority of lawmakers who embrace the sanctity of life and are not politically indebted to Planned Parenthood and its allies.

Please join our black brothers and sisters in mourning for those black babies and all babies whose lives have been taken for the lost cause of racial and social manipulation under the guise of "choice."

And the Republican Party, my party, is asking us to take a "Time Out" on the social issues so we can maybe elect a Republican who may or may not be pro-life.

God help us.

I am weeping as write this. "Tears stream from our eyes because of the destruction of our people."


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

When Culture Defines Truth

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Jennifer Wright Knust, religion professor at Boston College, ordained American Baptist pastor and author has written a new book, "Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex And Desire."

And the media sees her as a champion because she is "religious," yet believes what they believe.

In her book she argues that there are many cases in the Bible where pre-marital sex, homosexuality and prostitution is permissible.

Knust told Huffington Post that the story of Ruth is an example of how pre-marital sex is "a source of God's blessing" in the Bible.

She admitted to CNN that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a "few" biblical passages but claimed that, "These passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be explained in any number of ways."

President Obama gave a similar response last year as he declared his support for homosexuals, referencing the verses in Romans and Leviticus as "obscure" passages while claiming that the "Sermon on the Mount" affirmed same-sex relationships.


Newsweek Magazine has championed Rev. Ms. Knust and her message with a feature article. I have linked the Newsweek article and an article published in the Christian Post which gives more detail about her claims of Ruth and others in the Bible and a reasoned and frank response from biblical scholars.

Here is my point.

Josh McDowell says 75% of kids coming from a church or Christian background walk away from their faith while attending college and university.

Barna Research has found that 70% of youth believe, "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Seventy percent say two people could define "truth" in conflicting ways and both be correct.

McDowell, in his book, "
The New Tolerance," written a number of years ago, said that 53% of people in churches believe there is no absolute truth and among youth in churches, 57% did not believe an objective standard of truth exists.

A recent survey by the Southern Baptists found that kids in Christian homes often believe that Jesus is not the only way to God.

Is truth absolute or relative? Don't have time for philosophical debates? Think again.

For more than 2000 years the Christian church has been the guardian of Truth as revealed in the Bible.

Is the church now allowing its very foundation to be dismantled by relativism?

Is truth absolute or relative?

Is there such a thing as universal and objective Truth?

The popular postmodern view today, the champion of entertainment and public education, is that truth is relative.

Christianity, on the other hand, is built on the premise that truth is absolute and that the teachings of the Bible are universal.

Does it matter that many Christian voices have been silenced through intimidation, fear of retribution and revised mission statements to reflect an "emerging" church that is more "compatible" with the culture?

The truly big issue of today is not homosexual marriage, abortion, the elevation of immorality, etc.---it is the apathy of the Christian church. These other issues are symptoms---deadly symptoms.

To speak out on these issues in our present culture is to experience the wrath of the activists and the raised brow of the public, both of whom would prefer silence on our part. And some among us, prefer it as well.

Your financial support allows us to continue to do our best to carry a candle, speak to the issues and stand for what we believe is biblical truth. And to do it publicly.

financial support is critical at this time. Thank you.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Sen. Ed Murray Going for the Brass Ring of Homosexual Marriage---Again

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
He has done it before, but this time there seems to be more confidence. After defeating R-71 and enshrining into law what they promised was "not gay marriage," I believe they called their bill that became law "everything but marriage," Senator Murray is reaching for the brass ring.

After Senator Ed Murray, Representative Jamie Pederson and other homosexual activists in the State Legislature got their Domestic Partnership bill passed into law, the one they claimed was not marriage and not related to marriage, they then admitted to the press that it was in effect the last step to homosexual marriage.

Homosexual activists are pursuing a calculated course of incrementalism, and in some cases deceit.

You may recall, The Seattle Times and other pro-homosexual activists and organizations called for the Legislature to "Give Them Marriage," in the days following the defeat of R-71.

Some evangelical leaders publicly conceded marriage to the homosexual activists, saying it was just a matter of time. We are victims of Post Modernism they say.

I do not believe a majority of Washingtonians want homosexual marriage. From Walla Walla to Port Angeles, from Vancouver to Spokane--in Yakima (and yes, Wapato) and the Kitsap Peninsula and the Puget Sound area, I'm talking to my own family members and thousands of others who believe as they do. There are many, I feel a majority, who will not support homosexual marriage.

Now Senator Murray is making his move. He introduced
SB 5793 on February 14---Valentines Day, in the latest attempt to push natural marriage off the cliff.

Yesterday, homosexual activist Representative Jim Moeller introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives.
HB 1963.

This is the short overview of the bill :

2011 Senate Bill 5793 (Legalizing same-gender civil marriages)

Introduced by Sen. Ed Murray, (D-Seattle) (D) on February 14, 2011, to declare that it is the intent of this act to end discrimination in marriage based on gender and sexual orientation in Washington. The bill provides that, where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender specific terms such as husband and wife shall be construed to be gender neutral.

Referred to the Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee on February 14, 2011.
This is the
text of the bill.

Senator Murray and his colleagues, including Governor Gregiore, are attempting to re-engineer and re-define the institution of natural marriage---a God ordained and socially accepted institution that has stood for more than 5000 years and is the model building block upon which every successful society and culture has been built in human history.

contact your senator and tell them you strongly oppose SB 5793.

If you get an email response from them, please forward it to me at .

Thank you.

It's important that state senators hear from a large number of citizens in their own districts and it's important they hear from us sooner, rather than later.

Be Prayerful. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Vocal.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

"Christian" Get's Straightened Out

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
In a video that has been seen on YouTube alone by nearly two and a half million people, an out-of-touch man named "Christian" is reeducated and straightened out regarding his understanding about homosexual behavior.

The short educational video cartoon is soft sell and explains to the viewer just how out-of-touch old men in the past have been and typical middle America, particularly Christians, are today. "Christian" is cast as uninformed, unsure and confused about his beliefs.

Focusing on so-called studies on genes, hormones and birth order, the viewer is told homosexuality is common in nature, normal among humans and socially acceptable to most all recognized medical groups.

The educational video takes on what they call, "ex-gay ministries," mocking and discrediting them.

Homosexual behavior is presented as normal and genetic, with birth order playing a significant roll.

I am told this video is being circulated among school children. I am trying to find out if it has been used in any public schools in Washington State. If you are aware of its use as" educational" material in any public schools, please let me know by

It is deceptive on several fronts. It gives the impression that homosexual behavior is genetic, while in fact, there has never, ever been any genetic linkage.

It both mocks those who advocate that homosexuals can change through spiritual restoration and deceptively says they never change, even through spiritual transformation.

Take a couple of minutes and watch the
video. Every Christian and social conservative should be aware of it.

I welcome your feedback.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Active.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, February 14, 2011

HB 1267--- Redefining Parenthood

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
"My Daddy's Name is Donor"---"Family is the New Gay"---"My Mommies Rule"---"Got Moms," are just a few of the slogans being printed on children's clothes and distributed across the nation.

The family and parenthood is being redefined. Quietly, sometimes deceptively, but with great resolve on the part of those who seek to do so.

In the spirit of the new Washington State Domestic Partnership law, a group of state legislators are moving to "comply" with the new law and in doing so, are redefining not just the family, but parenthood itself.

The current attempt is
HB 1267. Click here to see the list of legislators who are sponsoring the bill.

You may click
here to read the text of the bill as it is being presented.

The hearing is tomorrow, February 15, at 8 AM in House Hearing Room C -- the John L. O'Brien Bldg.

If at all possible, please attend the hearing. Also, please
call your representative and tell them you strongly oppose the bill.

This bill will allow women to enter into a paid surrogacy contract, become pregnant through fertilization procedures and give up the child for financial profit.

It also changes the presumptions of parenthood. Presently, if a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is legally presumed to be the father of the child.

HB 1267 extends that presumption to homosexual relationships, so the child can be legally presumed to have a second mother.

Parenthood is being re-defined in the laboratory of social experimentation. Generally, this process follows the legalization of homosexual marriage, but in the case of Washington State, the several homosexual activist legislators are so confident that they are near the gold ring of homosexual marriage, they are moving forward under the guise of "complying" with the DP law.

I think we should be concerned, very concerned, as to how this will further affect children.

In the brave new world of redefined family and parenthood, sperm donors might not be fathers, mother's girl friends and ex-girl friends can be mothers or fathers.

Egg donors and surrogates are usually not considered mothers, but can be---sometimes.

Absent fathers, when they anger their ex-girlfriends, can be reduced, at least rhetorically, to mere sperm donors---yet the state generally holds them accountable for child support.

What does "father" mean?

What does "mother" mean?

Who decides? Homosexual activists?

The common thread that runs through this great social experiment of redefining parenthood is the adult right to a child. But the rights and needs of an adult to have a child is not the whole story.

Even the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child recognized that back in 1989.

Parenthood is increasingly becoming an institution oriented primarily around the needs of the adult, which is consistent with the basic self centered philosophy driving the homosexual rights movement. The fact that children have both a need and a right to have a father and a mother is pushed to the shadows.

We should have serious concerns about the family diversity curriculum that is imposed in the public school classroom and beyond into the media and entertainment industry, all this along with the silencing in the culture about the importance of mothers and fathers.

Legal adoption was never intended to support a perverted argument to advance homosexual "rights," nor the argument that children don't care who their mothers and fathers are. Much less to re-engineer the family and marriage.

God help us. And God help the children. Outside the Christian and conservative community there is no outrage, there is no conviction, is there no thought as to what would be best for the child?

Be Vocal. Be Prayerful. Be Active.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Should We "Turn Off" The National Anthem?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Following Christina Aguilera's fiasco performance of, "The Star Spangled Banner," at last Sunday's Super Bowl before a record television audience of 111 million viewers, there are those now calling for "THE Anthem" to be axed from sporting events.

This is probably more of an opportunity to advance a personal agenda than to cover for Aguilera.
And it's not a new effort. The idea of getting rid of the Anthem has been floating around for some time.

AOL, who announced earlier this week they had purchased the ultra liberal "Huffington Post," carried a story by Kevin
Blackistone titled, "Time To Turn Off The National Anthem At Sporting Events." And yes, he thinks we should.

He calls it another "mindless ritual."

Other headlines this week include, "National Anthem Should Be Banned From Sports," "Fans, Not Stars, Should Sing Anthem At Sports Events," "Oh Say Can We Sing," etc., etc.

This idea has been around for a while. Michael Kinsley, whom Blackistone references, wrote an op-ed for the
Washington Post back in the summer of 2009 advocating dumping the Anthem saying, "Anything would be better than those 'bombs bursting in air'."

Kinsley, half heartedly, goes through a number of alternative songs, pointing out that "This Land Is Your Land" has found mainstream acceptance even though Woody Gutherie, a communist, wrote the song out of annoyance at the popularity of "God Bless America." Clearly Gutherie had a very different view of America's future than most of us would have.

Kinsley says "even Republicans " like the song because they are unaware of its origins.

Not all Republicans are unaware, Mr. Kinsley.

What do you think? Should we dump the Anthem for another song? Is there a better song that we should be using? Is this just a mindless ritual? Or are these folks just trying to exploit an opportunity to further undermine one more public expression of patriotism?

Personally, I think we should keep the song, continue to sing or perform it at sports events and forget the celebs who probably, for the most part, agree with Gutherie and let the folks sing it.

What do you think?

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Truth About Planned Parenthood's Recent Actions

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Many have posted on our sight and have written me some very direct accusations in defense of Planned Parenthood.

I understand that it is difficult to accept the moral and possibly legal failure of an organization that embodies one's beliefs. Planned Parenthood is the banner carrier for abortion. And for those who advocate for it.

However, I would urge you to take a closer look at what it is that you are defending.

LIFE NEWS has published some clarification on what is happening on the matter from Lila Rose, the founder of Live Action. Please consider this:

Lila Rose: Planned Parenthood Deceives in Sex Trafficking Video Response 2/9/11 2:16 PM

The following are six of the top deceptions Planned Parenthood has engaged in its response to the sex trafficking videos.

Deception 6) “We reported this to the FBI”

Planned Parenthood wrote the FBI a letter a week after our investigation, only after they realized that Live Action had conducted the sting. They say this themselves. As much as they may pretend, Planned Parenthood was not attempting to help send human traffickers to jail; they were attempting to pre-empt the release of Live Action’s footage.

If Planned Parenthood really cared about reporting potential sex traffickers to authorities, they would have called police while the pimp was in the clinic, or immediately after. Not wasting a minute. Planned Parenthood, where are the reports from the now SIX clinics we’ve released, that you immediately called the police?

Why did all your staffers, instead of refusing service or gathering information from the pimp about his sex ring to inform authorities, GIVE the pimp information about how to access the Planned Parenthood system for secret services?

Deception 5) Live Action Videos Are All “Doctored” and a “Hoax”

We have heard this tired claim from Planned Parenthood every time we release a video. Yet every time we’ve released a video, we also post the full, unedited footage online for all to see, and send the full, unedited footage to state and federal authorities. Planned Parenthood can’t argue with the full footage.

See Vice-President Stuart Schear on camera claiming our tapes are doctored, then admitting he hasn’t even seen them. (link:

Planned Parenthood, if you really think our videos are “fake”, “doctored” and a “hoax”, why did you yesterday claim that you will be retraining your entire staff of 11,000?

Deception 4) “We are retraining our entire staff of 11,000.″

First of all, we have heard the “retraining staff” excuse before. When Live Action released undercover footage in December of 2008 showing the sexual abuse cover up of a 13 year old girl at Planned Parenthood, the organization called for “re-training”. Clearly, that re-training (whatever it was) didn’t last very long, if two years later Planned Parenthood workers are caught on tape working with human traffickers to provide services (link:, ways to get around pesky parental involvement laws that protect children, tax-funded discounts, and even business advice.

But more to the point: Are Planned Parenthood workers “trainable”? Our tapes show them repeatedly and unabashedly doing “business as usual” with the self-disclosed seller of underage girls’ bodies for sex. The brutal business of human trafficking cannot be taken seriously enough.

Yet instead of showing even basic concern for the victims, Planned Parenthood workers across the board are happy to help the serial abuser.

And another important question: Can Planned Parenthood be trusted to train its staff sufficiently? What does it say about an organization’s leadership if their staff–from managers, to supervisors, to clinicians, to staffers–unequivocally and without question show willingness to do secret business with a pimp?

A final question: How exactly will Planned Parenthood be “training” it’s staff? Will the training be a special seminar on how to recognize Live Action cameras?

Deception 3) Virginia Staff Acted “Professionally”

This is one of the most disturbing statements we have heard yet from Planned Parenthood higher-ups.

Virginia staff, on all four tapes released in Virginia, were very helpful to the self-identified pimp of underage sex slaves. Staffers assured him it was confidential, offered him information on how to get cheaper birth control, on how to get free STD testing, told him how to use the website and phone system. And even coached him how to use judicial bypasses to get secret abortions for his underage sex slaves.

These are the actions that Planned Parenthood is calling “professional”. Does anyone think that it is professional to give a brutal sex trafficker of children advice on how to use the system?

This is not professional; this is criminal. It is criminal and incredibly offensive and harmful to the victims of abuse across our nation.

And keep in mind: If Virginia staff acted “professionally”, then is this how the public can expect Planned Parenthood to “train” their staff of 11,000?

Deception 2) This is an “isolated incident”.

A favorite of Planned Parenthood’s. Every time Live Action releases a video (and we’ve released over 16 now), it is “an isolated incident”. Let the facts speak for themselves. Look at the evidence. For over three years our team has been investigating the institutional sex abuse cover up at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Even before the human trafficking footage, we released 10 clinics that revealed the sexual abuse cover up of minors as young as 13. In these 10 clinics, we had actors posing as the underage girls, self-reporting abuse and asking for help. In every case, Planned Parenthood worked to cover up the abuse of the underage girl and did not comply with the mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse. Instead of help and safety, the underage girls are coached by Planned Parenthood staffers on how to cover up abuse and get secret abortions.

Live Action has now released six more clinics in the past week, all showing Planned Parenthood workers, at all levels of the organization, willing to aid and abet the human traffickers of underage girls.

This is an institutional crisis that has engulfed the whole organization. No matter how many times Planned Parenthood’s PR firm says “isolated incident”, the growing body of evidence still stands.

Deception 1) We have a zero-tolerance policy for abuse, and you should trust us.

If anyone can still believe this, I don’t know if there is any evidence in the world that will convince them otherwise.

The growing body of evidence reveals that Planned Parenthood unequivocally covers up the sex abuse of young victims and is willing to work with the abusers. Our undercover actors could not have said who they were and what they represented more clearly. Planned Parenthood repeatedly looked the other way. It is a federal crime to aid and abet in the trafficking of underage persons. What is a better way to aid and abet a pimp of young girls, then give him all the secret abortions, birth control and the services that a pimp would need to keep his sex slaves on the street?


I hope this helps.

Thank you to those who are stepping up to
help us financially. Your support is greatly needed now. We are doing our best to keep you informed on the most critical issues facing us at this time. Thank you so much. Blessings.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

PPH Caught Again----Abortion Clinics Unregulated in WA State

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Yes, Planned Parenthood has been caught again, this time in New York City, and again it has to do with sex trafficking of minors.

The trial for the abortionist in Philadelphia is under way. What is being learned will shock your sensibilities and conscience.

And did you know the abortion clinics in Washington State are unregulated? That's right. Unregulated.

First, Planned Parenthood in New York City has told an undercover "pimp" that he can serve as guardian for his underage sex slaves.

Keep in mind, sex trafficking of minors is a federal crime and punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life. 18 US Code 1591.

Any person who aids, abets, or counsels a federal crime to be committed may be punished as if they had committed the crime themselves. 18 US Code 2.

view the video of this latest encounter with evil.

There are several things that stood out to me during the video taped meeting.

*These young pro-life people at "LIVE ACTION" have made 14 or 15 similar videos and Planned Parenthood has never challenged the authenticity or validity of the tapes. Others have, but PPH has not. They are authentic.

*The demeanor of the abortion clinic managers and staff suggests to me that this is not something unusual or out of the ordinary in any way and are always ready with a hushed tone explanation of how to proceed, regardless of how illegal or bizarre the circumstances the "client" is describing.

* Note the emphasis on "confidentially"---keeping things from parents, etc. The Planned Parenthood worker, Kristol, says, "Like, a 13 year old could come in and get the services she needed by herself." Telling the pimp he could be the guardian if needed.

Now Planned Parenthood is publicly promising to "re-train" their workers on "how to report potential risks to minors." And they say this is not new material, but material they have previously used for training. This will be a "refresher".

A "refresher"? Oh sure. That will make everything okay. I think I see a little more than a forgetful employee. I see activism in its lowest, most immoral and likely illegal, form.

Those who see and advocate abortion as merely a sophisticated and progressive right and choice should think again.

The trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist in Philadelphia, is already revealing more than most of us would want to know.

Local people are asking, "How many severed baby spines does it take to pay for a $948,000 shore house?" "How many severed baby feet is a boat worth?" And, "What part of Dr. Gosnell's abortion clinic paid to keep his 41 year younger mistress on the payroll?"

He is charged with killing 7 babies and one patient.

The court has found he made $1.8 million per year, just on abortions, not including prescriptions, etc.

And most all of the $1.8 million was cash from desperate, poor women. Likely minorities.

While Planned Parenthood and NARAL lead the charge to abort the pro-life Pregnancy Centers by suing them out of business, they themselves are operating without any oversight or state regulation.

Abortion Clinics in Washington State are not regulated by the State.

Ramona Reeves-Stumpf, a homeschooling mom, former journalist and County Council staffer, was wondering what state regulations applied to abortion clinics, since they are so focused on regulating the Pregnancy Centers, so she wrote an email to the Department of Health last month asking if abortion clinics were regulated.

The response:

"Good Afternoon, Ramona,

"We do not regulate abortion clinics in Washington State."

The State continued. "These clinics do not have any safety or cleanliness standards, because the clinic itself is not regulated."

I have linked
Ramona's website and the state's complete response.

She notes that, "Pro-abortion forces want to regulate facilities that merely provide Information, about a women's pregnancy and All her choices."

While they themselves remain unregulated. And in control of a majority of elected state legislators regarding this issue.

Is legalized abortion the enemy within?

Marcus Tillus told the Roman Senate in 58 BC:

“The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.”

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Planned Parenthood Stung----Again

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The abortion industry is incestuous, both nationally and here in Washington State, and has been caught once again in the act.

This time, sex trafficking of children.

Planned Parenthood Nationally

Amy Woodruff, the clinic manager of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood clinic, was first defended by PPH, then fired.

Lila Rose, a UCLA student and founder of "Live Action," a pro-life activist organization, organized the latest under cover operation. Once again Planned Parenthood failed miserably.

On tape, Ms. Woodruff is advising a man acting as a pimp on how to hide a group of under age girls who are prostituting, how to make the little girls look as "legit as possible" by lying about their age and that of their sex partners, where the youngest can get an abortion with no questions asked, how they can return to "work" after the abortion and even the benefit of the absence of parental notification laws.

She even explained how the pimp could get a discount. And promised to try to keep it all a secret.

"As Legit As Possible."

I have
linked the video. Please watch it if you are pro-life and pro-children.

This is once again, "The Face of Evil" in action.

Planned Parenthood takes in about $363 million from taxpayers each year. One wonders who is actually being stung.

You help fund them while they try to appear, "As Legit As Possible."

This is one more incident in a line of despicable behavior from the abortion business.

A trial is under way in Philadelphia where an abortionist is charged with killing babies born alive under the guise of a "late term" abortion. He is also charged with killing a woman in his clinic. We wrote about this earlier.

Washington State

Planned Parenthood and their first fundraising cousin, NARAL, are very active and successful in Washington state.

Each year NARAL holds a fundraising campaign to silence our own Faith and Freedom voice. The last attempt was this past summer. With God's help and your support, we're still talking. And taking action.

They have tirelessly tried to put the Stormans' family pharmacies in the Olympia area out of business because of the Stormans' pro-life convictions. They have forced the Stormans' to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend their pro-life beliefs and practices.

They are presently trying to pass legislation that would allow them to sue the pro-life Pregnancy Centers out of business. HB 1366 and SB 5247. You know about this.

I have linked a report from
Washington Wire issued yesterday on the State Senate discussion on the matter.

While people recognized as community leaders sit and serve of the respective boards of these organizations and people whom you elect consistently support them in policy and funding, all under the guise of "choice, women's rights, health care, reproductive rights," and a number of other bullet points, the organization and its enablers continue to operate in the messy, immoral world of killing the unborn and in some cases born children, assist in child sex trafficking and God only knows what else.

What are we thinking?

And please, moderate, pro-abortion Republican, don't tell me it is all about the economy. Focus on fiscal, not social issues, you have said.

The issue of abortion and its funding and influence is so important in Washington State that State Senator, Kevin Rankin, D- San Juan, who sponsored the Senate bill designed to allow Planned Parenthood to sue Pregnancy Centers out of business, said from the Senate floor just last week, on the record:

"There are some issues that rise to the top regardless of our budgetary situation and economic situation, I believe this is one of them."

Yes, it is.

I believe many of you agree. And somehow Rankin and his majority must be defeated.

Keep in mind, Rankin is speaking for the majority of elected officials, including some pro-abortion Republicans.

We must keep talking and taking action. This is not a battle that has been lost, but a battle that must be fought. Along with the defense of natural marriage and other social issues.

Please, once again,
contact your Representatives and Senator and express your opposition to these bills.

financial support allows us to continue. Thank you.

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, February 07, 2011

A Stronger National Identity

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Although the United States of America was believed by some to be an officially "Christian" nation in our formative years---and beyond, it was never "officially" Christian.

There was such a strong Christian consensus that protected freedom for all and recognized that freedom came from God the Creator, not government, that the Judeo-Christian principles and values are at the core of the country's identity. It was our country's identity. At least until recently.

Those values shaped the American culture and shaped what America was to become. A city on a hill. The most blessed and prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Now President Obama and others insist that America is "no longer a Christian nation," with a note of pride, pragmatism, and secular, progressive accomplishment.

Inclusion, multiculturalism and inverted tolerance are often seen as a symbol of the new virtue by the post modern crowd.

But does this affirm progress, and if so toward what, or is it a sign of regression? A loss of national identity? A loss of purpose and destiny and character?

Sarah Palin's
comments last Friday night in Santa Barbara raised the ire of many in the media. She said Obama's policies have put the United States on the "Road to Ruin."

Is our present course a "road to ruin?" If not, why are those who advocate our present course so touchy and defensive about their actions and policies?

UK Prime Minister David Cameron
says the UK may also be on the "road to ruin."

While not using the term in his first speech as Prime Minister, he said, "Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years." In dealing directly with the Islamic problems England is experiencing, I believe, in a broader sense, he touched on some of the issues that are dividing America and causing us to be "weighed in the balance."

His immediate concern is the Islamic takeover of the UK and how radical Islamists are exploiting England's "positive tolerance" policies.

UK Security Minister, Barones Neville--Jones said in explanation of the PM's statements, "There's a widespread feeling in the country that we're less united behind values than we need to be."

While the Islamic influence in America is considerably less than it is in the UK---at least for now, their concerns should raise some concerns of our own.

Palin told her audience that America is at a crossroads,referencing a 1964 Ronald Reagan speech titled "A Time For Choosing."

Indeed we are at a crossroads. Will the secular progressives define America as something we have never been, or will we find national restoration?

Will we become a nation without a strong national identity, or will people of faith pray and act in ways that will bring God's blessing and restoration upon the nation?

Will we become a nation without defined purpose, without a defined destiny---a nation among others---not exceptional, without identity?

I personally favor the "pray and act" plan.

Over 200 years ago we sent England a very strong message---a Declaration.

Perhaps England, now, through her own struggles and challenges, is sending us a message, one underscored by her own policy mistakes, that if unheeded, will assure an outcome in America that the UK is only now beginning to realize.

This is a time for Americans to decide again who we are and what we believe. I believe that decision is in process.

Reagan was right. And Palin was right to quote him. This is a Time For Choosing.

An ancient call comes to mind. "Choose you this day whom you will for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I want to share a couple of thoughts about Ronald Reagan, whose 100th birthday will be celebrated this Sunday, the 6th, while his life and Presidency will be celebrated throughout the month of February.

But First:

FOX, whose cable news channel has become a banner carrier for many conservatives and Christians, has made what I and others believe is a very bad decision.

FOX, the affiliate network, has declined to carry an ad during this Sunday's Super Bowl that involves a reference to John 3:16 written on the eye black under the eyes of a football player on television.

This is a
link to the 30-second ad. FOX says their policy will not allow such an ad.

I personally believe FOX has the right to run or not run what they want on their network. However, I think they blew it on this call. Look at the ad and see what you think.

At least 2 of their affiliates are going to run the ad anyway. There will likely be more by Super Bowl time on Sunday.

The first 2 affiliates to choose to air the ad are in Alabama and would you believe, Washington DC?

Ronald Reagan:

A familiar true story is worth repeating. It is profoundly meaningful in these challenging times.

On the eve of Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, a reporter asked him what it was that Americans saw in him. Reagan said, "Would you laugh if I told you that I think maybe they see themselves and that I'm one of them?"

President Reagan believed in America and in the American people.

People believed he was one of them.

Through principled leadership and personal conviction, he led America from Jimmy Carter's "Mourning" to the rising sun of "Morning" in America.

People believed they had a date with destiny.

At the time of his election, we were being told America was suffering from a "crises of confidence"---and perhaps we were.

The Carter Administration had actually defined the times as one of "malaise."

Reagan not only believed in America, but he helped others believe in America as well.

He stood on the world stage, with no apologies, but with confidence, humility and resolve, and defined America---and true freedom.

In 1987, Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Just over three years later, I stood and watched the wall being torn down and hauled away in dump trucks. I still have a piece of "that wall" on my desk, and the memory of the face of freedom in action is held in my heart for a lifetime.

I, along with several hundred youth from a local church in what had been "West" Berlin, held a Christian service in a public square of what had been "East" Berlin.

Those in attendance, particularly the elderly, stood in awe of a miracle they had feared may never happen.

For me, it was a defining moment of how faith and freedom can find a way to prevail in the human spirit and in a culture.

I will never forget the glow of freedom on the faces of those thousands in attendance as they publicly expressed their Christian faith.

Newt Gingrich has written a new book titled, you guessed it, "
Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny".

I strongly recommend you read the book. If you order the book through our Faith and Freedom website, we receive a commission of 4 to 8%, depending on volume. Click
here to buy it.

The book is also available in most book stores and COSTCO.

Thank you to those who have stepped up with donations to help us meet our budget. Your
support allows us to continue.

Have a Super weekend. God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

"An Age Of Trial"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
"We live, my dear, in an age of trial. What will be the consequences, I know not."

John Adams penned those words to his wife in 1774.

He and his colleagues faced a trying time---"An Age of Trial," and did not know for sure the outcome. We know it as the successful, American Revolution.

Thomas Jefferson, 31-years later, in his second Inaugural Address, confirmed something he, Adams and all those who led in the founding of this country, were absolutely certain of,
"We are firmly convinced---that with nations, as with individuals, our interests soundly calculated, will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties."

As morality goes, so goes an individual and a nation.

This is an "Age of Trial "---in our communities, our state, our nation and our world.

There are those who work tirelessly to strip the moral fabric from the weave of our culture. There are also those who work tirelessly to advance moral and just policy in government, knowing as Jefferson knew, you cannot separate the moral and fiscal component of the culture. They are inseparable.

As I passed someone in a hallway on the Capitol Campus in Olympia the other day, they thanked me for our work and said, "Gary, what keeps you going at this level of activity?"

My answer to that is likely the same answer many of you would give.

From time to time throughout history, there has been an authentic "Age of Trial."

As a pastor I have preached sermons from the text of the Old Testament book of Hosea. It tells us much about national sin, the consequences and ultimately, God's grace.

The prophet wrote,
"There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...because you have forgotten the Law of God; I will forget your children."

He said you have turned to so-called "allies" and they "have devoured your strength" and you don't even know it.

He said his country had "made many altars for sin" and God's laws are now considered a "strange thing."

There are those in the Washington State Legislature who agree with Jefferson and our Founders---as morality goes, so goes an individual, a state and a nation, and are working hard to pass state legislation consistent with that truth.

You know their names. You worked hard to help elect them. You voted for them.

But they are in the minority. And in nearly every case are asking me and Faith and Freedom to help them pass moral and responsible legislation by publicly confronting and exposing evil, informing and educating the public, advancing goodness and calling people to action.

This is our "Age of Trial."

A national cultural conflict unlike any I have seen in my lifetime is in play.

We are experiencing a financial crises unlike any for a very long time, touching most every individual and family in some way.

"An Age of Trial." What will be the consequences, we do not know. Much hangs in the balance for all of us.

I do know that God has led me to do what we're doing. This is a time for people of Christian faith to be informed. To be prayerful and discerning and active. We are doing our best to be a part of that process.

I have never been a high-powered fundraiser, nor could I be or want to be. However, I do want to be very honest with those of you who support what we are doing.

Our budget is modest and frugal, but it must be met. Last month that did not happen.

Could I ask you to help us financially this month? If it were unnecessary, I would not ask. Those who oppose us love these moments, but I know those who support us understand.

I'll skip any attempt at a hard sell and simply say thank you for doing what you can do. We really need it.

You may make a donation
online here or mail a check.

Thank you for your response.

God bless you.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Judge Strikes Down Health Care Law

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
What does it mean?

President Obama has been dealt the broadest rejection yet to his universal health care bill.

Judge Roger Vinson
ruled that the President and his 2010 Congressional majority breached the Constitution when they passed the law.

Vinson ruled in favor of the 26 states who have argued the individual mandate to purchase insurance went beyond Congress' authority as granted by the Constitution.

Washington State is one of the 26.

In his ruling, Judge Vinson quoted James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and made references to the Boston Tea Party.

The far left and the Obama administration are now calling his constitution-based ruling "activist" and asking others to do so as well.

In fact, an official from the Obama administration said these references were a "mark of weakness."

Understanding the Founder's original intent and learning from history has rarely ever been considered "weakness." Particularly by the administration of a sitting president.

I suppose we could call that "change."
The Wall Street Journal reported that, "Judge Vinson wrote that the entire law must be voided because the individual insurance mandate is 'not severable' from the rest of the law. Some laws contain what's known as a severability clause that says the rest of the law stands should a judge strike down a piece of it. But Democrats left it out."

The Obama administration is saying that requiring Americans to carry insurance is within its constitutional powers.

But "candidate" Obama
told Ellen DeGeneres and her TV audience on February 28, 2008, that unlike his opponent Hillary Clinton, he opposed forcing the uninsured to buy health insurance, saying that would be like forcing the homeless to buy homes.


The judge is saying "no". Under that theory, he says, "Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile---now partially government owned---because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a tax payer subsidized business."

Another problem the President has created for himself is that in his exuberance to reciprocate to friends, he has been passing out wavers to the very bill he has championed for all the rest of us. If it's so great, why do his friends want off the hook?

In case you missed it:

He has given waivers to the New York City
teachers union. They spent $1.9 million on Obama's election.

He recently gave the
SEIU 3 additional waivers. They spent $27 million backing Obama's election.

This is President Obama's signature legislation, yet those closest to him are asking to get out. Why?

I'm sure there is a lengthy, elitist answer.

One thing seems certain. This is all headed to the Supreme Court.

Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, said, "This ruling confirms what Americans have been saying for months. The health spending bill is a massive over reach."

Indeed it is.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Senator Swecker Calls For School Vouchers

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Washington State Senator Dan Swecker has introduced a bill which if passed, will provide vouchers for families who choose to educate their children in schools other than the public schools.

Senate Bill 5346 (Authorizing education vouchers)

Introduced by Sen. Dan Swecker, (R-Rochester) (R) on January 21, 2011, to authorize that, beginning with the 2011-12 school year, parents who choose to educate their children outside the public education system to receive an education voucher for each child educated outside the public education system. The superintendent of public instruction is to adopt rules to implement this bill.

Referred to the Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee on January 21, 2011.
Please call your state senator and express your support for
SB 5346.

Senator Swecker is in good company. Speaker of the US House, John Boenher has also introduced a
similar bill for the District of Columbia, one of the country's worst public school districts.

Senator Joe Lieberman has introduced a companion bill in the US Senate.

Although the President is calling for a strong bi-partisan effort to improve education, many feel he and his people will not support parental choice in education.

It will be interesting to see how Governor Gregoire and her people respond to Swecker's bill here in the state.

The unions, to whom both the President and Governor are deeply indebted politically, strongly oppose vouchers and parental choice in education.

It is well documented in DC that under the voucher system many kids were able to excel, however, the Obama administration has systematically dismantled the program.

One other problem for the secularists is that many of the DC kids were placed in parochial schools.

We can look for both the unions and the secularists to strongly oppose a proven path to educational success, strictly on the basis of ideology.

It will be interesting to identify those who oppose Swecker's bill and their reasons. We will keep you posted.

Thank you for
financially supporting our efforts to inform and activate conservatives and people of faith.

Reminder. Senate hearing on anti-Pregnancy Centers SB 5274 tomorrow morning at 8 am in the Cherberg Building. Please attend if possible.

God bless you.
Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.