Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Military and Vets Give Obama Low Marks

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
While America remembered and honored those who have served and do serve our country yesterday, Gallup released a study analysis taken from more than 238,000 interviews and found that, "US Military veterans and those currently on active military duty are less likely to approve of President Obama's job performance than Americans of comparable ages who are not in the military."

Gallup suggests several reasons for the outcome of their study.

You will note that more than twice as many young military (age 18-29) had "no opinion" than the general population of the same age.

We get that. They like their job. He is the Commander in Chief.

But there is another dynamic at work in the military. Despite all the assurances and "yes sirs," there are concerns among many in the military regarding the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't tell."

A recent White House Memo -- the "Statement of Administration Policy" on H.R. 1540--The National Defense Act for Fiscal year 2012 is not encouraging. Here's what is buried on page three of the document.

Most of the Memo deals with the Administration's position on weapons procurement and policies like the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), etc.

However, while scanning the document, we noticed that on page 3, the Administration says, "Attempts to Pervert, Delay or Undermine the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will meet 'strong objection.'"

The May 24, 2011 Memo further says, "Should it be determined, as required by the Statute, that the implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion and military recruiting and retention, then the President, the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will send forward the required certification. The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts directly or indirectly to undermine, pervert or delay the implementation of the repeal as such efforts create uncertainty for service members and their families."

"Should it be determined...?" It has already been determined. It would appear that all the studies on the matter is simply a charade. The outcome is fixed.

The President has promised the homosexual lobby some progress on their agenda. They have been angry because he has not done enough, fast enough, for them.

Military people see the "fix." Are they going to not go along with the Commander in Chief's scheme? Some of the older ones are willing to put themselves on the line, while the younger ones are hesitant.

And why the big rush?

I personally believe the President is rushing to get his deal done during June. You will recall when June was known for proms, weddings and Father's Day. While most Americans still embrace these days, June has essentially been co-opted by the homosexual movement.

In June, 2000, President Clinton proclaimed June to be "Gay-Lesbian Pride Month."

President Obama will again step beyond Clinton and proclaim June 2011 "Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender" month.

As President Obama gears up his re-election campaign, it would be terrific for him to get his repeal certified and announce it to the homosexual activists during June---a month now choked on so-called "Gay Pride" parades and perversion and tell all the rest of us that after extensive studies, it has been found that this will have no negative effect on our military. A speech that has likely been written since before the issue came to vote.

It is difficult to see a president put social experimentation before the security of our country. Many believe that this repeal will in fact have a negative effect on recruiting and retention and unit cohesion.

What he is doing is an affront to the very people we honored yesterday---and to those who serve today.

This memo appears to illustrate a president who cares more about keeping a promise to the radical homosexual activists, than about the troops he is charged to command. And a nation he has sworn to defend.

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Looking For Leadership--"We're Running Out of Time"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Recent polls show greater numbers of people are looking for leadership in our country--both Democrats and Republicans--Christians and non-Christians.

Today is the first of a special series that we are calling, "Looking For Leadership." As we discover positions taken or statements made that we feel represents exemplifies leadership, we will share it with you.

"Politicians are often afraid that if they're too honest, they might lose an election. I'm afraid that in 2012, if we're not honest enough, we may lose our country."

"Three years into this term, we're no longer just running out of money. We're running out of time."

Who said that this week?

Tim Pawlenty said that as he declared himself a candidate for President of the United States.

He also said, "President Obama's policies have failed. But more than that, he won't even tell us the truth about what it's really going to take to get out of the mess we're in."

Pawlenty says it's time to tell the truth. If he does it--that's leadership.

We are not endorsing him or anyone else, we are simply pointing to statements or actions that we feel denotes leadership.

If you have recommendations for "Looking For Leadership" articles, email us and we will consider them.

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.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Marriage Under Assault In DC---Again

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
While Christians, conservatives and most who care about the safety of our children, were welcoming the resignation of President Obama's "Safe Schools Czar," founder of Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and gay activist, Kevin Jennings; some of the President's advisory council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships joined the President's national war on the Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA).

Rev. Nancy Wilson, a lesbian and member of the President's Faith Based council, told the press, "We come to our nation's capitol to tell our elected officials that our marriages count and that DOMA should be repealed,"---echoing the President's sentiments.

Ironically, in the name of morality, there is a growing assault against those who support natural marriage. The charge? Immorality.

Their inversion of biblical truth brings Paul's words to the Roman Christians (Romans Ch.1) to mind.

"How many gays does God have to create before the world will treat us equally?" they ask.

In support of ENDA and the defeat of DOMA, Rev. Wilson declared, "It is a failure of this nation's moral and constitutional character to deny federal benefits to married couples or deny job security to people who just want to feed and clothe their families."

She spoke of her 33-year "marriage," "made legal in Massachusetts in 2004."

In the economy of the new morality of the President and these activists, it is immoral to stand on biblical teaching on the matter of homosexual behavior and natural marriage and it is moral to affirm, celebrate, normalize and legalize it.

I hear the voice of Saint Paul writing to the Roman Christians and those who would follow, "There are those who have exchanged the truth of God for a lie"---they have "become futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened"---"vile passions, a debased mind," echoing and affirming the teaching of the Old Testament on the subject.

These are not my words. I'm merely reminding you of them. And we are called a bigot.

The President's response to these particular Scriptures has been to identify them as "obscure" or misunderstood. Too many in the church have chosen silence, while the more blatant response by activists is simply---"Get over it," the title of a video that is circulating, particularly among the youth, advocating they put aside biblical teaching on marriage and homosexual behavior, because it's outdated. Irrelevant. And the church, too often, affirms it with our silence.

Bishop Yvette Flunder, founder of Refuge Ministries, told the press, "Too many have committed suicide," concluding, "One of our elected officials in Minnesota just yesterday said: How many gay people will God have to create before the world will treat us equally?"

With these kinds of arguments, they are demanding that the Christian church forsake biblical teaching, the federal government affirm their sexual behavior and our culture abandon 5000 years of social precedence and declare it normal.

In an email we received yesterday, I was vigorously accused of basing my beliefs on the "bible".

I plead guilty. How about you?

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

"Gay is Not the New Black"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
I have repeatedly said that sexual behavior is not equivalent to ethnicity, yet the mantra of the homosexual movement is to identify with the civil rights struggle of the 1960s and beyond.

And some uninformed are buying it. I continue to get email from people, some very hateful, accusing me of being a racist for not accepting the gay agenda as equivalent to the civil rights movement.

I had not reported this story earlier this spring, but had read it, because of my interest and many years of active involvement in the National Religious Broadcasters Association.

However, I continue to hear from those who either actually believe or are seeking to cause others to believe, that gay is the new black.

I believe every Christian and conservative should familiarize themselves with what Pastor Voddie Baucham told the National Religious Broadcasters Convention back in February.

Earlier this year pastor and cultural apologist, Voddie Baucham, challenged christian broadcasters at their national convention to not buy into the "gay is the new black" propaganda, but to remain committed to defending biblical marriage.

Baucham, an African-American, said, "I'm insulted that people equate not just a sinful behavior but a behavior that's a special category of sin called abomination with the level of melanin in my skin," then proceeded to tell the broadcasters how we got to where we are. And why they and many pastors feel uncomfortable addressing this issue.

He told the broadcasters that they are often nervous, even afraid when the subject comes up. He said you squirm in your seats and try to prove you don't hate gay people by saying you have gay friends or family members.

He said the reason for the discomfort is that homosexual activists have "co-opted blackness...to where now, we actually believe gay is the new black and we actually believe homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue."

Pastor Baucham said the discomfort "is an intentional result of an aggressive homosexual agenda that started over two decades ago."

He explained the process and cautioned the NRB audience, representing most of the religious broadcasters in America, not to fall victim to three common attacks in the homosexual agenda.

He also lamented that black leaders are providing "cover" for gay activists to play the race card instead of giving a legitimate reason for their demands.

He said, "There is nothing more loving than calling a person to repent of their sins," reminding America's religious broadcasters that according to Ezekiel 33, "The blood will be required on their hands if they don't tell the wicked man to turn from his ways."

He outlined the three pronged gay agenda that has successfully gotten us to where we are. I have linked the story and his explanation.

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Obama's Father--Punished with a Baby?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
You will recall Candidate Obama's response to a question about sex education: "I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Punished with a baby?

Apparently Barack Obama, Sr. shared those feelings.

Peter Heck has written an article on a story that is getting extensive coverage in Europe, but generally is being kept under wraps by US media, involving Barack Obama, Sr. sending a young Kenyan high school girl he had impregnated in Massachusetts to London to have an abortion.

Heck says the story is based on evidence that has emerged from recently secured documents from Immigration and Naturalization Services.

I have linked the INS file on the Sr. Obama.

There is an old African proverb---Heck quotes it, and I have heard it while establishing churches and schools in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa.

It goes something like this: "Who knows whose womb carries the next chief?"

Wisdom beyond the pay grade of our President.

One can only wonder how the most pro-abortion President in the history of our country deals with these kinds of family facts. He, too, could have been a "choice". And how his wife, Michelle, can describe the butchery of partial birth abortion as a "legitimate medical procedure"?

Heck concludes, "Like father, like son."

I have included Peter Heck's article below.


The nearly aborted president
Peter Heck - 5/23/2011

There's an old African proverb that says, "Who knows whose womb carries the chief." This simple truth has taken on a powerful meaning recently for every American paying attention.

According to recently secured documents from the Immigration and Naturalization Services, evidence has emerged that President Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., apparently paid to send a young Kenyan girl he had impregnated in Massachusetts to London to have an abortion.

Doing the work that investigative journalists of the mainstream media used to do, author Jack Cashill reveals that the foreign press, unlike their American counterparts, are all over the story. Far from speculation, according to the INS documents, the high school-aged girl was in Massachusetts on an exchange program when she evidently became pregnant by the 29-year-old Obama. Asian News International notes that this incident occurred prior to 1973's Roe v. Wade decision, meaning, "abortions were illegal in the U.S."

One cannot help but wonder if such a revelation would not cause a man whose own wife describes the heinous butchery of partial-birth abortion as a "legitimate medical procedure" to consider: that could have easily been me.

Let me pause to acknowledge that I don't typically like using these kinds of tactics when discussing the issue of abortion. The truth is it doesn't matter whether the child being killed is the next Beethoven, Bach, Edison or Einstein. What makes human life valuable and worthy of protection is that it is human life, bearing the inviolable image of the Creator. Life is valuable because of what it is, not what it does -- whether that's making beautiful music or being tone deaf, inventing a light bulb and unlocking spectacular scientific mysteries or needing help tying shoe laces...or yes, leading the most powerful nation in world history.

But this unfolding bombshell regarding Barack Obama's family is highly instructive given our president's life-long commitment to defending abortion. The simplest scenario arising from the story is this: President Obama had a half-brother or half-sister who, rather than having the chance to thrive and succeed as he has, ended up in a dumpster in London. The more complex reality for the president to grapple with is that it is not that far of a stretch to assume, given the complexities of his relationship with mother Ann Dunham, that Barack Obama, Sr. might have preferred the same end for our current president.

Such a scenario, beyond offering a brand new perspective on Obama's memoir Dreams from My Father, would provide the most pro-abortion president our country has ever known with the same chilling realization that so many of us born after the disastrous Roe decision encounter: had it not been for the strength and resolve of loving, pro-life mothers, we could have been legally slaughtered.

It was former President Ronald Reagan who is credited with having stated the obvious but enlightening fact that those fighting for abortion rights are those who have already been born. This disquieting account about his father allows our current president the chance to put himself where his half-brother or half-sister once was...where he once was...and reconsider his tragic position on life in the womb.

As I read the heartbreaking details of this story about a soul deprived of its unalienable right to breathe free, I'm taken back to President Obama's response to Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church presidential forum in the lead-up to the 2008 election. Asked when a baby gets human rights, Obama cowardly surrendered righteousness for convenience and politics, infamously asserting that, "answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade."

That embarrassing response shouldn't have been a surprise given that just a few months prior, Barack Obama addressed the issue of sex education on the campaign trail. Speaking specifically about his own daughters, the man who could have been aborted himself proclaimed, "I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Like father, like son.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Obama On Israel: "Ridiculous And Dangerous"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
As President Obama was, by almost everyones understanding, demanding that Israel return to her 1967 borders last Thursday, many leaders were pushing back---way back.

Senator Orin Hatch, R-Utah, said of the President's position, "This is not only ridiculous but dangerous" and promised to sponsor a resolution this week disapproving of the President's position.

Senator James Imhofe, R- Okla., said, "The President's position was a slap in the face of our friend and democracy's only ally in the Middle East: Israel." He said, "The land belongs to Israel. Period."

Rabbi Aryeh Sero said, "It's ironic that the President of the United states, who speaks in humanitarian tones regarding the Palestinians, doesn't have any humanitarian concerns toward 500,000 Jewish people and families that will be uprooted and deported from their homes."

Ironic, Rabbi, but not surprising.

He said, "The President of the United States is asking for ethnic cleansing."

Prime Minister Netanyahu told the President "No." He said, "It's not going to happen and everybody knows it's not going to happen."

But oh what a difference a day (or two) can make.

Late yesterday afternoon the President spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and now things are a bit different than they were on Thursday. A slight misunderstanding.

President Obama told AIPAC that he wasn't changing his stance---any negotiation has to begin by acknowledging the 1967 borders, before the Six Day War.

The key word was "acknowledging"---apparently lost on everyone except a few of the most elite advocates of the President, covering the President's back on television and print media over the weekend.

FOX News
made an interesting observation regarding Hamas, who has promised in their charter, the destruction of Israel.
"The president said no country should be expected to recognize a government that calls for its destruction, and he called on Hamas to 'accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements.'"
But Marc Thiessen, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said Obama's exclusion of the latter two issues while calling for narrowing Israel's borders puts Israel in a precarious position.

"By leaving that out while calling for the 1967 borders, he essentially tried to take away the Israelis negotiating card while leaving the Palestinians theirs," he said. "If 7 million Palestinians return to Israel, it will end Israel as we know it."

Where is the real misunderstanding? In the demands on the border? On the intent of the speech? Or the intent of the President?

God help us.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama's Choice

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Goodwin Liu is a very bad choice for a federal judgeship that will help shape the future of America.

Many agree that he is indeed, a bad choice, but the President apparently feels rather comfortable with him, or has more political debt to pay off. The President has nominated him for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Liu's beliefs regarding the Constitution are not a secret. Neither is his views on what America should look like in the future.

Perhaps this nomination says more about the President who nominated him than about the nominee himself.

My Grandmother Randall (O'Hara from Ireland) lived to be 96. There were some things she believed to be so important, she repeated them over and over and over. One of those things was this: "Gary, remember, you'll be known by the friends you keep. You know, birds of a feather flock together."

Here are some of Liu's statements on the Constitution, immigration, welfare, foreign authority in America and his personal evaluation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

I have linked this story at CNS News.

Back on Nov. 1, 2006, Liu wrote in the Yale Law Journal, “First, contrary to the conventional wisdom that ‘the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties,’ the social citizenship tradition assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty.”

The article continues, “Beyond a minimal safety net, the legislative agenda of equal citizenship should extend to systems of support and opportunity that, like education, provide a foundation for political and economic autonomy and participation. The main pillars of the agenda would include basic employment supports, such as expanded health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust earned income tax credit.”

“Because the Supreme Court has refused to squarely recognize fundamental rights to education, welfare, and other government aid, we are taught to believe that no substantive obligations exist in these areas,” wrote Liu.

Liu said in 2006 that Alito’s vision of America is one “where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy, where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance, where the FBI may install a camera where you sleep, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man absent analysis showing discrimination.”

During Liu’s 2010 confirmation hearing, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) brought up an article by Liu published in the Daito University Law School Journal in Japan. It said, “The use of foreign authority in American constitutional law is a judicial practice that has been very controversial in recent years. The resistance to this practice is difficult for me to grasp since the United States can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.”

Likely the President is grooming him for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

John McCain, certainly not always a banner carrier for conservative views, is promising to attempt to block this nomination.

God speed, Senator McCain.

Friends of faith and freedom in America and elsewhere--there is much work to be done.

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Homosexual Recruitment of Kids Intensifies

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
"I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach and expose children to queer sexuality and there's nothing wrong with that." ---A national homosexual website. I will not link it, but will identify it.

President Obama's assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, Kevin Jennings, recently spoke to a group of high school students, drawing parallels between discrimination toward homosexuals and slavery and segregation in America.

Although Jennings speech was announced to students, who were required to attend, as a talk about bullying, CNS NEWS reports that, "He did not discuss bullying outside the context of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

Parents were not told nor were they or their children given an op-out opportunity.

Jennings' entire presentation was a history of the black struggle for civil rights, equating their leaders with leaders in the homosexual movement.

Sexual behavior is not equivalent to ethnicity.

"Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal."---The same national homosexual website.

Pastor Bill Barnard of Central United Methodist Church in Toledo, Ohio, told ABC News, "We really believe that being gay is a gift from God."

And a gay activist is encouraging Christians to forget about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

"Can we please just start admitting that we do actually want to indoctrinate kids?" ---Same national homosexual website.

Let me give you some details.

The national website queerity has finally come out and is advocating the real motives of the homosexual agenda. I have quoted only a few of the statements currently being made on the site regarding children. It is a vile and perverted site and we will not link to it, however, it is widely read by homosexuals. There is a battle for the children of this country---your children and grandchildren, and it is being waged in the classroom, some churches, and entertainment--- music, television and films, and as parents you must be informed.

Please be informed.

Kevin Jennings, as many of you know, was appointed by President Obama, against much dissent from Christian and conservative lawmakers in Congress.

Jennings founded GLSEN, a homosexual advocacy effort aimed exclusively toward school children.

As you read the link I provided on Jennings' speech at the high school, you will find an eerie correlation with the statement of mission on the queerity website and the parallels he co-opts from the true civil rights movement.

Jennings' speech and the talking points of the homosexual movement are a slap in the face of every African American who has struggled for equality.

It is an affront to the parent of every child who is taught that a chosen sexual behavior is equal to ethnicity.

He told the kids President Obama has done more for the homosexual movement than any other president in history.

Pastor Bill Barnard of Central United Methodist Church in Toledo, told ABC News, "We really believe that being gay is a gift from God, and it's not anything that anyone has to apologize for or be ashamed about."

His church defines sin as, "denying who God made you to be." The pastor says, "The overwhelming scientific evidence is that people are born with their sexual orientation, that it is not a choice."

This is a lie. There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay---none.

Dan Savage, a homosexual activist is urging people, especially youth, to forget what the Bible says about homosexuality. To "get over it." I have linked his video that is also circulating among youth.

The queerity site sums up their appeal to the homosexual community to stop lying about their intentions: "They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, 'NOOOO', we're not trying to make children learn about homosexuality, we swear it. It's not like we're trying to recruit your children or anything."

They continue: "Let's face it---that's a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality---In fact our very future depends on it."

The future of your children and grandchildren and the future of our culture hangs in the balance. This is not a time for apathy, timidity or confusion over what Scripture teaches on the subject.

Please be Vigilant, Discerning and prayerful about this matter.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

NARAL: "Exposing Crises Pregnancy Centers One City at a Time"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
NARAL has launched a nationwide campaign to discredit and shut down pro-life Pregnancy Centers---"One City at a Time."

Their campaign will remind our readers in Washington State of the hearings many of us attended earlier this year. They are using the same lines, the same tactics, but obviously hoping for a different outcome.

The Washington Legislature said "No" to them during this session. I have no doubt they are already organizing for their next attempt in Olympia.

Here's how the "Fight For Life" will play out nationally over the coming months. I have included their strategy, their talking points and their video.

NARAL New York, has produced a video that was placed on YouTube last week (May 10 ).

I strongly encourage you to spend a few moments and watch it. The video will likely circulate in your community, on cable, perhaps on local TV and even in classrooms. And is already on the Internet.

The video is revealing and repetitive of what many of us have heard in Olympia. Remember, this is a national campaign---"one city at a time."

You will note in the video the kinds of accusations that are being leveled at the pro-life pregnancy centers:

"Pregnancy Centers claim women who had abortions went crazy."

"The centers have no obligation to tell the truth."

"They exist for the sole purpose of dissuading women from seeking an abortion."

They are, "Emotionally bullying women."

They are, "A brainwashing outfit."

They "Pretend they're doctor's offices."

These statements are being made, not only by abortion industry employees, but by community leaders as well.

Here's the bottom line as I see it.

  • In Washington State, a place not known for its conservative or pro-life community or legislators, we turned out in force at public hearings, contacted lawmakers with huge numbers of people asking them to defeat the efforts of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others, and saw this very plan defeated. The force of our presence was felt by elected officials. The only thing new in this is the video.
  • This video affirms what they denied in Olympia. They were not, as they claimed, merely wanting transparency and disclosure from Pregnancy Centers, by forcing them to physically post the services they do not provide. They wanted to shut them down. What they denied in Olympia, they are confirming with this campaign.
  • They are once again going after the most vulnerable women in the most vulnerable neighborhoods, with their stated purpose of focusing on the urban areas.
Discrimination against the poor.

Christian News Wire reports that, "Statistics show that African American and Latina women account for 27% of the female population in the US, yet, they undergo 59% of all abortions."

And abortion providers out number pregnancy centers by a rate of 5 to 1.

Once again the "Face of Evil" presents itself as an agent of light and help and compassion.

Be Vigilant. Be Strong. Be Discerning. Be Vocal. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Oxford University: "Belief In God Is A Natural Human Response"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Oxford University has found that belief in God or gods is a natural normal human response.

While a few lawyers, atheists and secularist educators strain their social and academic muscles to obtain a different outcome, it seems that according to a just completed
Oxford University study known as the "Cognition, Religion and Theology Project," "Humans are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God or gods and life after death."

The $3.7 million project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology and philosophy.

Here's what they found.

The study was funded specifically to establish "whether belief in divine beings and after life were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature."

The research included countries such as China, where religion, especially Christianity, has been strongly suppressed, with aggressive efforts to re-educate and secularize children.

Co-director of the project, Professor Roger
Trigg, a professor at Oxford, said their research showed that religion is "not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf."

"We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across all societies," he told the British press.

He said of the study, "This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short lived as human thought seems to be rooted in religious concepts, such as the existence of super natural agents or gods, and the possibility of an after life or

"We tend to see purpose in the world"---"We see agency and think that something is there even if we can't see it," he told the press conference last Thursday.

said, "There is quite a drive to think that religion is private. That belief is wrong. It isn't just the quirky interest of a few, it's basic human nature."

Some compelling take away thoughts.

  • It would be tough to be an atheist. Richard Dawkins, an atheist apologist, is already saying atheists have talked themselves into a corner because they can't answer the question, "Where does morality come from?" He is encouraging atheists to lean strongly on Darwin and evolution as the basis for advocating changing morality. It has been said, "It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian."
  • Atheists are already attacking the study and those who conducted it. I will not link the site, but one site that advocates that "evolution is true" began posting yesterday, "This speaks to me of credulity---a credulity easily understood as a result of wish-thinking, fear of death and the need for agency in a cruel and chaotic world."
A personal note: I have been reading extensively today on this news release. In nearly every case, atheist writers connect, in some way, the "homosexual marriage--equality" campaign with this issue. This should not have surprised me.
  • This study shows that religion is much more universal, prevalent and deep rooted than atheists, secularists and public educators would have us believe. It is deep rooted and it has got to be reckoned with. They can't simply pretend it isn't there.
  • This study affirms we believe there is a God. He did create us. And He has given us an inclination toward Him.
  • Countries that have attempted to create an atheist culture have either failed or are in the process of failing socially. China is finding it more and more difficult to suppress the practice of Christianity. Does anyone remember the Soviet Union? And there are lines of people at the border of North Korea, but they are not trying to get in.
  • The attempt to remove religious expression---particularly Christian expression, from the fabric of American cultural may be destined for failure. The present course of secularizing America may well lead Americans to rethink their passivity toward the continuing assault on religious freedoms.
A country whose legal system was built on Blackstone's codification of Scripture, whose freedoms were believed to be given by God, not government, and a people who valued life above all things, because they believed God had created human beings in His image and likeness, may well reconsider their natural inclinations toward God and experience spiritual renewal that will reclaim and restore our culture. I pray so.
  • Trigg says he thinks the "Secularization theory of the 1960's was hopeless."
I pray that the secularization assault on America in the 21st Century will also be seen by future generations as a hopeless failure.

There is a God and He loves you.


Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, May 16, 2011

$60 Do-It-Yourself Mail Order Suicide Kits

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
They are available by mail, with no questions asked---and they're selling like hot cakes.

Well, maybe not hot cakes, but Sharrlotte Hydorn, 91, based in San Diego, says sales of her device have increased more than 300%, thanks to the Northwest. Oregon in particular.

Oregon and Washington are leaders in the assisted suicide business.

Hydorn's kit or "exit kit" as she calls them, consists of a plastic hood that closes around the neck and tubing that connects the hood to a tank of helium or other inert gas---the inert gas sold separately, as they say.

The kit comes with complete instructions.

I have linked 2 sources for this story. Reuters News and ABC News.

Hydorn has been selling her devices for sometime, but since the death of Nicholas Klonski, 29, an Oregonian with no terminal illness and customer of Hydorn's took his life, her business has come under scrutiny by lawmakers. She has also experienced dramatically increased sales as a result of the publicity.

Now Oregon lawmakers are moving a bill through the Legislature to make it illegal to sell or market these devices in Oregon. Washington will likely follow.

But the "pro-suicide option" lawmakers, have a problem.

The cutting edge, assisted suicide laws in these states not only require that the patient be terminally ill but be physically capable of administering the drug themselves.

This is a conflict, something death legislation often presents.

Now legislators are looking for words that will allow people to kill themselves with the state's drugs or methods, but not drugs and methods of the patients choosing.

Yet, assisted suicide is suppose to be about a personal choice.

Klonski's family are understandably upset at Hydorn, but Hydorn says she gets, "emotional satisfaction" from helping people in this way and that their problem is not her problem.

She says she got the design for her "exit kit" from a Hemlock Society meeting she attended. She feels this is a mission for her.

She said, "We treat animals better than we treat dying people. They keep people alive and do terrible, painful things to them because we can't let go and patients just become cash cows."

When people assume the role of God, and are not God; and the belief of a Creator, eternity and eternal consequences are removed from one's thinking, the sanctity of life and more is lost.

People, then, have no greater value than animals.

It then becomes rational---makes sense, to kill unwanted pre-born babies and call it choice.

It makes sense to help kill the elderly and call it compassion.

We are drowning in moral confusion.

God Help Us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Not Afraid.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Planned Parenthood: 37% Not 3% Related to Abortion

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Once again Planned Parenthood is exposed as being less than honest about their stake in the abortion industry.

Randall K. O' Bannon, Ph.D., has studied Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for more than 20 years.

In studying Planned Parenthood's latest report (2009) he has found that Planned Parenthood presents itself as something very different than it actually is. They present it to the public through a multi-layered presentation that is very misleading.

Dr. O' Bannon, who is affiliated with National Right To Life, shares his findings in an interview with NRL.

He uncovers how PP claims only 3% of their business is abortion, when in fact 37%---or more is abortion business.

Following is the National Right To Life News interview with Dr. O' Bannon.

May 12th, 2011

Q&A with Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.

Editor’s note. Whenever questioned about the hundreds of millions the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) receives every year in government funding, PPFA ducks, bobs, and weaves. At the top of its evasions is a multi-fold defense that attempts to demonstrate that abortion is a small part of what it does, bringing in barely enough to pay the utilities. Is this plausible? To those who don’t have the opportunity to closely follow the money and statistical trails, yes. But are they true? No! Contrary to the official PPFA line, its abortion connection has, if anything, been underplayed. For an explanation we turn to Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life’s resident expert on Planned Parenthood. Dr. O’Bannon has tracked the activities of PPFA and its affiliates for us for over 20 years and has written dozens and dozens of stories and blog entries about the country’s largest abortion provider, which aborted 332,278 babies in 2009.

Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon is director of Education and Research for the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

NRL News: Let’s start with this claim that abortion represents “only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services,” the single most common PPFA defense. Where does this come from and is it in any sense true?

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.: If you were PPFA, above all you want people’s eyes distracted from the 330,000+ abortions you perform a year. How could you minimize its prevalence and its importance to your bottom line? (This is complicated, so please bear with me.) By bundling services when it serves your purpose, and unbundling when it makes you look better. It arrives at this 3% figure by using some very strained mathematics, by counting everything given to, or done for, a given patient as a separate service. So if a young mom comes into a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion, she’ll probably also have a pregnancy test, maybe a test for an STD, and then may receive a packet of birth control pills after her abortion. So, is that one “service” or four? Planned Parenthood counts each of these as a separate service.

Moreover, this same woman coming in for an abortion may receive three, four, or more additional services, such as an ultrasound, an antibiotic, and an Rh type and hemoglobin test, all connected to her abortion visit. When counted separately, it makes it look like abortion was only one among several other more conventional “reproductive health care” services or procedures. [See PPFA’s 3/11 fact sheet on services]

PPFA offers the “3% of services” mantra day in and day out. It is accepted uncritically by the media. The figure is purposefully confusing. A much more understandable—and accurate—measure is to look at the numbers of clients, rather than the number of “services.” That tells a very different story.

Outside of places like National Right to Life News and NRL News Today, you virtually never read that the percentage of PPFA’s clients that receive abortions is 12%. As we shall see in a moment, that is important not only because it reveals its enormous investment in abortion, but also because abortions generate a hefty share of clinic revenue.

NRL News: So, to be clear, that means that nearly one in eight women walking through the door of a Planned Parenthood clinic receiving services has an abortion?

O’Bannon: Well, even that probably understates the abortion-related traffic to Planned Parenthood. In 2009 over 1.1 million women coming to Planned Parenthood had a pregnancy test. We don’t know what percentage of those were positive. What we do know is that of the services Planned Parenthood reported that would have involved pregnant women (abortion, prenatal care, adoption referrals), 97.6% were abortion.

On the PPFA Services fact sheet, Planned Parenthood says it provided services for three million people in 2009. That would mean roughly a third were tested for pregnancy. Considering how a woman can buy a relatively inexpensive pregnancy test from her local drug or grocery store, she must have had a reason to seek out Planned Parenthood. If the availability of abortion was the reason, that would mean that abortion was pulling in even more than the 12%.

NRL News: Even so, 12% of the business being devoted to abortion would be a significant percentage, would it not?

O’Bannon: That it would be. But to reiterate, abortion certainly accounts for a great deal more than just 12% as a portion of PPFA’s business, especially if you’re looking at it in monetary terms.

To see how significant abortion is to Planned Parenthood’s bottom line, there is no equivalency between a $15 pregnancy test or a $6 pack of condoms or $15–$50 packet of birth control pills and an abortion which runs $350–$950 for a first-trimester abortion [seewww.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.asp].

Here’s some very basic math. At $451 (the Guttmacher Institute’s estimated average cost for a standard first-trimester surgical abortion), the 332,278 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2009 would represent $149.9 million—37% of the $404.9 million in clinic revenues PPFA took in for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2009 [see PPFA 2008–09 Annual Report ].

NRL News: That’s a far cry from the 3% we started with.

O’Bannon: And since Planned Parenthood clinics also advertise and perform more expensive chemical abortions, like those with RU486, and later surgical abortions, which average more than $1,500 at 20 weeks, that income and that percentage are probably much higher. One thing is clear from the data we have, data that comes from Planned Parenthood itself. In spite of the spin and the deflections, Planned Parenthood certainly is “Big Abortion”– the nation’s biggest performer and most aggressive promoter of abortion.

NRL News: We know we have to be 100% accurate or the 99% that is correct gets tossed away. What are some common mistakes with regard to the data?

O’Bannon: Speaking in terms of Planned Parenthood’s “profits” instead of “revenues.”

Another is to confuse its clinic or “health center income” with the total revenues of the organization. Planned Parenthood had total revenues of $1.1 billion in FY 2009, but only 37% of that came from clinic income. It got another $363.3 million in “government grants and contracts” and private contributions totaling $308.2 million, and another $24.5 million from other sources.

One thing people also need to do is to be specific. Don’t say that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s patients have abortions, because that isn’t correct. What is true is that in looking at those services intrinsically connected to pregnancy—abortion, prenatal care, and adoption—97.6% of those were abortion.

NRL News: Anything else you want to say about this 3% claim that Planned Parenthood has popularized?

O’Bannon: If I may, let me briefly mention three other related issues. First, PPFA is building up its abortion business in a major way (see the editorial on page 2). This is 180 degrees away from the organization’s attempt to act as if abortion is incidental to what it does.

Second—to borrow from the article I wrote that appears on page 11—a secondary Planned Parenthood tactic is to argue that increased funding will enable it to reduce the numbers of abortions, but its own organizational reports don’t seem to show that.

The revenue Planned Parenthood receives in “Government Grants & Contracts” has gone from $165 million in 1998 to $363.3 million in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. During the same time, and at roughly the same rate, abortions have more than doubled at Planned Parenthood, from 165,509 in 1998 to 332,278 in 2009. All this while abortions in the U.S., as a whole, dropped by about 25%. To say that Planned Parenthood is committed to reducing abortions is to go against decades of evidence that shows the exact opposite.

Third, to return to the original question, we’ve shown that PPFA is heavily invested in—and derives enormous income from—abortion. But even if abortion constituted “only” 3% of its business—which masks the truth—this organization boldly and unapologetically destroys over 300,000 innocent human lives every year, making millions in the process, and unapologetically defends its doing so.

This is not only an absolute corruption of the very notion of “health care,” it is a gross abuse of our most basic human rights, something that no civilized society should tolerate, much less pay for.

Planned Parenthood is indeed the "Face of Evil".
To those who repeat the 3% lie, perhaps you will want to reconsider your unwavering support.

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

What are the Obama's Thinking?--- Rapper "Common"?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The police were outraged over First Lady Michelle Obama's invitation to rapper "Common" to join her last night at the White House for a "poetry evening".

Many in the general public were shocked.

Chicago rapper, Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., A.K.A., "Common" who likely knows the Obama's from their years of attending Rev. Wright's church, outraged policemen because of some of his lyrics that include threats to shoot police.

He has also performed a passage suggesting burning then President George W. Bush.

Here's a sample of some of his lyrics, a video and the White House explanation.
Letter to the Law

Dem boy wanna talk… [indistinguishable]

Whatcha gon do if ya got one gun?

I sing a song for the hero unsung

with faces on the mural of the revolution

No looking back cos’ in back is what’s done

Tell the preacher, God got more than one son

Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton

I walk like a warrior,

from them I won’t run

On the streets, they try to beat us like a drum

In Cincinnati, another brother hung

A guinea won’t see the sun

with his family stung

They want us to hold justice

but you handed me none

The same they did to Kobe and Michael Jackson

make them the main attraction

Turn around and attack them

Black gem in the rough

You’re rugged enough

Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch

Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun

I got the black strap to make the cops run

They watching me, I’m watching them

Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them

My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them

and when we roll together

we be rocking them to sleep

No time for that, because there’s things to be done

Stay true to what I do so the youth dream come

from project building

Seeing a fiend being hung

With that happening, why they messing with Saddam?

Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button

Killing over oil and grease

no weapons of destruction

How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one

The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people

Black people In the urban area one

I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.

Peace, ya’ll.”

This is a link to a video--if you care.

And why did the White House invite this person?

Well, its partially a misunderstanding of what "Common " represents.

"While the president doesn't support the kind of lyrics that have been raised here, we do think some of the reports distort what Mr. Lynn stands for more broadly in order to stoke controversy," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.

Carney said, "He is within the genre of hip hop and rap in what's known as a conscious rapper," he said, adding that President Obama appreciates the way Common tries to get children to focus on poetry, "as opposed to some of the negative influences of life on the street."

Oh, OK. Don't focus on the part about shooting the police or burning a president, just study the structure of the lines of lyrics. Got it.

Another special event in the Obama White House.

God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Free.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Navy Pushes Back On Homosexual "Marriages" in Naval Chapels

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Chief of Naval Chaplains, Admiral Michael Tidd recently announced he was revising Tier I training manuals which had previously indicated that same sex "marriages" were not allowed on federal properties.

His office had decided that same-sex couples in the Navy would now be able to get "married" in Navy chapels and that Navy chaplains could perform the ceremony---if homosexual "marriage" is legal in the state where the unions were to be performed.

The Admiral said that naval bases are now, "generally speaking--sexual orientation neutral."

Rep. Todd Akin, R-MO., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, immediately raised concerned that in its haste to "hustle in homosexuality," the Navy may be violating federal law---the Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA).

I don't want to say "I told you so", but many of us were saying that among the several consequences of scrapping the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be an open door for homosexual activists to, in the words of Rep. Akin, "hustle in homosexuality."

Myself and others were summarily dismissed and mocked when we raised that issue.

Admiral Tidd had heard the call and was hustling. Rep Duncan Hunter, R-Cal., also announced he would offer an amendment to the annual defense bill to require that all of the chiefs of the armed forces---not just the chairman---would have to submit certification that removing the military ban on homosexuality wouldn't harm unit cohesion and military order.

Late yesterday afternoon, the Navy pushed back.

Just because the President has dismissed DOMA, and refuses to defend it even though it is law, apparently doesn't mean the President nor those whom he commands are above the law. Their discretion does not determine what is and what is not law.

Now, the Navy says they are rescinding Tidds directive because, "Legal council determined that a more through review was required."

Is this a victory? Not really. But it is a very loud statement from those who join 5000 years of history, biblical virtue and common sense in saying marriage is only between one man and one woman.

These are perilous times---our culture hangs in the balance. The next generation is at risk.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Of Good Courage. We Shall Overcome.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Was Killing Bin Laden Biblically Justified?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Did the Navy Seals that raided Bin Laden's compound and killed him violate the 6th Commandment--"Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

Did President Obama violate the Commandment by ordering them to do so?

If not, why not? If so, where is the outrage?

Is every sin the same in God's eyes?

Some in the "Emerging Church" movement and the religious left are expressing measured concern over the events of recent days.

Brian McLaren, leader of the "emerging church" movement, decided to criticize the celebrations rather than the action, saying he was embarrassed by the American college students celebrating the death of Bin Laden, intoning from England where he watched the Royal Wedding, "Joyfully celebrating the killing of a killer who joyfully celebrated killing carries an irony that I hope will not be lost on us. Are we learning anything, or simply spinning harder the cycle of violence?"

Jim Wallis, a religious leader in the far left social justice movement, essentially took the same position, decrying those who expressed celebration while remaining silent towards President Obama with whom he is closely associated.

A significant restraint in comments from the religious left is evident, even though they disagree in principle, they are remaining silent because of their close affiliation with President Obama. Had George W. Bush been President, their criticisms would have been much louder, their dissent more aggressive, and all of it would have been shouted from the rooftops by a complicit press.

The ReligiousLeft.org web site said, "Like so many things, Scripture does not offer us clear responses to contemporary events for the Canon of Scripture is not an answer book."

"God does not desire vengeance and this is not God's form of justice," they say. They conclude that the killing of Bin Laden is, "a sad day, the most recent in many sad days over the course of the last decade."

Many biblical scholars do believe the Bible "gives clear responses to contemporary events" and that it is indeed an "answer book." And that the recent action taken against Bin Laden was biblically justified.

That is my personal position.

Pastor Greg Laurie of Harvest Christian Fellowship did not specifically mention Bin Laden by name on his radio program following the assignation, but went to great length to explain Romans 13 where believers are told to obey those authorities---government, because God has "established" them. I have linked his and others comments in Christianity Today.

However, it was mega church Pastor Kevin DeYoung of University Reformed Church in East Lansing Michigan that went to the heart of the matter on this subject.

Please read the posts on his web site for May 2, 2011 and May 3, 2011. In my opinion, this is the most biblically correct and clearly explained statement I have seen from church leaders on the subject.

He says only God has the authority to take human life.

"But," he adds, "God has ordained that he should exercise that right through the power of the state."

He says, "Capital punishment for murder is not an assault on the image of God, but a defense of it. It is because human life is so precious, that the taking of human life needs to be punished so severely. The principle of 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound' (Exod. 23-25) was not a matter of cruel and unusual punishment, but of controlled retribution as a means of protecting the community and valuing the dignity of human life."

He gives a systematic consideration of Scripture that speaks directly to this particular kind of situation and raises the theologically polarizing question, "Are all sins equal?"

"Every sin is not the same in God’s eyes," DeYoung says.

This sentiment is popular with many Christians. For some it’s a sign of genuine humility–“I deserve God’s wrath too. So how can I judge someone else?” For others this is a way to dodge the hits that come when you dare to criticize trendy sins–“Yes, I do think mating with bovines is wrong, but it’s not worse than any other sin.” And for still others, it’s simply a soft form of relativism–“Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, you know.”

Like many popular adages, this one about all sins being equal before God is not entirely wrong. Every sin is a breach of God’s holy law. And whoever fails to keep the law in one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). So any sin committed against an infinite God deserves punishment. We’re all born sinners. We all sin. Every sin deserves death. That’s why the truism is half-true.

He refers to Numbers 15: 29-30, Jeremiah 32:35 and Matthew 10:15 showing there seems to be gradations of sin, while clearly stating, "Any sin committed against infinite God deserves punishment. We're all born sinners. We all sin. Every sin deserves death."

He says, "Over and over the Bible teaches, either explicitly or implicitly, that some sins are worse than others"---with extensive references.

Concluding: "When we can no longer see the different gradations among sins and sinners and sinful nations, we have not succeeded in respecting our own badness, we’ve cheapened God’s goodness. God knows that some sins are more grievous than others. We would do well to see the world with God’s eyes as best we can."

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Monday, May 09, 2011

11 Republican Senators Enable Planned Parenthood

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Eleven Republican Senators voted to clear the way for John J. "Jack" McConnell, the former director of Planned Parenthood in Rhode Island, to receive a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship last week.

Eleven Republicans voted to close debate, even though Lamar Alexander called the nominee a "flawed nominee" and the US Chamber of Commerce and other similar organizations opposed him, allowing a cloture vote, which ensured the nominee would be appointed---for life.

The 11 Republicans are:

Lamar Alexander-Tennessee
Scott Brown-Massachusetts.
Susan Collins-Maine
Olympia Snowe-Maine
Saxby Chambliss-Georgia
Johnny Isakson-Georgia
Lindsey Graham-South Carolina
Mark Kirk-Illinios
John McCain-Arizona
Lisa Murkowski-Alaska
John Thune-South Dakota

They voted for McConnell, then voted against him.

Here's how it worked.

It took 60 votes for a cloture vote. The vote was 63 to 33 with 1 Senator voting "present" and 2 Senators not voting at all. So even had 4 of the 11 Republicans who voted for cloture not done so, the nomination would have failed.

In voting for cloture, they voted for him because the Democrats had the majority. Then in the up or down vote they voted against him.


They say the Democrats blocked President George W. Bush's nominees consistently by not allowing a vote, so they are not going to do that to President Obama.

Maybe its just me, but is this what the last election was about?

Take away lesson:

  • Planned Parenthood has another one of their own in a federal judgeship for life.

  • 11 Republicans feel good about how they voted. And so do their colleagues across the isle.
  • "Bipartisanship".

  • The 11 will return home, roll up their sleeves, grab the mic and call for change in Washington DC. And when ask, they will tell the locals, they voted against the Planned Parenthood nominee for federal judgeship.

  • And people will forget and work for their re-election and donate money to help defeat those pro-abortion candidates running against our guy.
It's not their fault. It's our fault. We gave them their vote. They will keep it until we decide to give it to someone who better represents our beliefs.

The same shell game is coming in Washington State in the next Governor's race.

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Friday, May 06, 2011

Bin Laden's Final Message: "I'm Sorry"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The world's most infamous terrorist left a most interesting and reflective message to his wives and children.

He had written a will after he escaped US forces in Afghanistan. The 4-page document is dated December 14, 2001.

Although it was believed he had inherited 18 million pounds from his father, nothing is said of money or possessions.

The TELEGRAPH reports, "The four page document, published in a Kuwaiti newspaper, is largely devoted to justifying the terrorist's efforts to destroy America and Israel."

He told his 24 children, "You my children, I apologize for giving you so little of my time because I responded to the need for Jihad."

The directive to his children was to not join al-Qaeda, citing a precedent from Islamic texts. They believe Mohammad's successor, Omar bin al-Khattab had left written instruction to his son, Abdulla, not to wage holy war.

And what about his 4 wives?

He wrote, "Don't consider marrying again. And devote yourselves to your children and guide them to the right path."

This stands in contrast to the desire of Judeo-Christians who try to live according to God's Word and want their children to follow in His ways as well---in the right path.

More than a thousand years before Islam texts were written, it was written, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12 NIV

Also written in ancient Scripture, "Show me your ways, O Lord, teach me your paths; guide me in your truth and teach me, for you are God my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long." Psalms 25:4-5 NIV

May his children discover the right path to God's grace and truth.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Thursday, May 05, 2011

How Much Should Teachers Teach?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
State Senator Stacey Campfield is answering this question----one that many parents across the nation are asking.

Campfield has sponsored a bill---SB 0049, in the Tennessee Senate that would amend Tennessee code to read, "No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

I visited with Senator Campfield yesterday. He told me his bill will likely be voted on today.

As you can imagine, he has been vigorously attacked by those who oppose him and the bill. His bill has been dubbed the "don't say gay bill." And much worse. His legislative record shows he is neither bigoted or homophobic, but that matters little to those with the agenda.

He told me he is concerned about the "fence sitters" in the Senate. He said they come to me and say they agree, but are hesitant to take a public position with a "yes" vote because of fear. Barring that, he feels the bill has a good chance to pass.

So what is he saying?

He said, "Gary, I firmly believe that families, not public education, should decide what, when and how children are introduced to the controversial subject of homosexuality."

He told me, "Teachers should not decide for every family and every child what they think is right and what time they think is proper to introduce it to a child. ...I just think that's going too far."

Noting that schools are falling behind with their original mandate of teaching "math, science, English, history---the bare basics," he said, "schools should not 'be trying to teach our kids their social philosophy.'"

Well said. And true.

While he did not say this to me, I noticed he has told some adversarial interviews, like Alan Colmes and others that, "In spite of what educators say, teachers are spreading the' gospel of gay' in classrooms around the state."

I would add, "around the country."

Beyond this bill he said, "I hope lawmakers in other states will take note and review how public education is assuming a roll that families---parents, should rightfully hold and be emboldened to take a stand for what is right, morally."

We have those in the Washington State Legislature who would whole heartedly agree with the Senator from Tennessee---I know they would, however, in our case they are not in the majority. In fact, I believe Washington State leads the country in the number of openly homosexual legislators.

And they are active on every front, attempting to redefine marriage, re-engineer the family and rewrite 5000 year old social norms that have served every successful society.

Parents, please take responsibility in your children's education. And God save and protect the kids.

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

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Mom Files Complaint Over Explicit Sex-Ed Book

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Jennifer Swedelson told me she was shocked when her 10-year-old daughter, Kaleigh, brought home the book, "What's The Big Secret?" from her Oak Harbor, Washington school.

She said she started flipping through the book and noticed it started talking more and more about sex, until she realized it was completely too graphic for her 10-year-old daughter. She said the book was discussing "different kinds of touching" and "masturbation," something she felt was not appropriate for 10-year-olds.

She said, "I just thought the school was doing a better job monitoring these kinds of things."

I asked if she had any prior concerns. She said, "No, I just wasn't concerned about that kind of problem occurring because I thought they were watching for that kind of thing."

She told me the librarian told her that she tries to avoid checking out the book to young kids, but it is available to all kids.

Jennifer has filed a complaint against the school. She is asking the school provide more information to parents regarding content and availability of this kind of material.

The school district's response has been typical. It is what they most often say when parents become vigilant and active, "We have never had a problem with offering the book to students until now," essentially saying, "you are the only one who has had this problem."

FOX carried this story on their web site. I have linked it here.

Interestingly, I noticed that Denny Casey (or Casey Denny) posted that he grew up and attended school in Oak Harbor and was shocked. "I cannot believe," he posted, "the school would allow such a thing in their libraries to be checked out by kids of all ages. Not just 5th graders mind you but K-5. And they think it's OK?"

The rush to re-educate our kids morally and culturally has created a false sense of "normal" in public education. It is a new "Normal" that is often in direct conflict with what parents believe and what they want their children taught.

Jennifer told me she is certainly going to pay more attention to these kinds of things going forward.

This is why we encourage people to:

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Vocal. Be Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.