During my term on the Committee,  I have worked hard with other conservatives on issues that range from exposing the UN Agenda 21, to an effort to defeat the National Popular Vote Compact that is funded by Jonathan Soros and other extreme liberals.  Those efforts have paid huge dividends and we have slowed them down, but have yet to defeat them.  Even though there is so much more work to be done, I have made
the decision to leave the Republican National Committee (RNC) to pursue another important cause—The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute.

Some would say to me, can you do both.  Normally I would say yes, but in this case, I’m working to found an Institute that is launching a national campaign called Give Cures and the time required won’t allow me to do both.  Focusing on my priorities, the choice is clear—the Institute.  It is more then a job for me.  The Institute is the pro-life alternative to all other research groups that are killing embryos for research or advocating government funding to do so.  It is a serious problem.  The progressive culture has bought into the idea that it is moral to kill for cures.

Thank God, that is not true for everyone.  Yesterday I took a call from a woman in Illinois who had been asked by her friend to give to a research organization that is working on a cure for M.S.  However, the research organization she has been asked to give to kills embryos in their research, and so she cannot support it–yet she wants to help her friend.  She is not alone.  Even the patients themselves who need a cure are concerned with the possibility they may one day be faced with a moral question … “Will I use a therapy that was derived from the death of embryos or babies killed at abortion clinics?”  They are looking for an ethical alternative.

Both the patients and the woman from Illinois said they had never heard of the John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute but that they would rather give to ethical research.  Problem solved.  This reaction is the same I have seen repeatedly.  The more aware I become of this problem, the more I’m convinced of the urgency to help the Institute’s Give Cures campaign.

It is true.  The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute’s brand is ethical research.  But it goes beyond a commitment to ethical research; it is working to build a newborn cord blood bank so that in the future every cancer patient who needs a stem call match can get one.  That is our vision!  It is humanitarian at its finest. The Institute’s Give Cures campaign is duly named so people can give what they personally have for cures.  This allows for a good conscience knowing the Institute’s goals are to preserve life while searching for cures to save lives.  Some people call it “win-win.”  We also like to say at the Institute…”it just got better.”  You can learn more at www.GiveCures.org.

It is a new season for me as I step down from the RNC and step up to Give Cures. I will miss all the wonderful people who have helped to protect our Republic in small but effective ways.  It really doesn’t require much to speak the truth, which is an advantage to our side. We just need more people willing to learn what that truth is (located in the Word of God) and to stand up for it when duty calls. My thanks to all the delegates who voted for me and to all the people around the state who work hard to help make it possible for good people to run for public office.  May God bless all of you.

The results of the Kentucky and Arkansas Primaries illustrated the problems of both candidates within their own party.

Barack Obama was held under 60% in both Arkansas and Kentucky. Spin this at we might. It’s embarrassing to an incumbent President with no serious opposition to be given these sort of margins and this is the 4th time in the Cycle that Obama has been held under 60%. The other times were Oklahoma and Virginia.

The spin on this will be that this is irrelevant because  these guys are racist and from deep red states. Obama’s problem is not these states but that there are Democrats in places like North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida that thing a lot like Democrats in these other states. Of course, they don’t exist in near the numbers that they do in these states, but they don’t have to exist in the same numbers to put Obama in serious electoral peril.

At the same time, Mitt Romney’s not doing all that well either.  He won 67% in Kentucky, running 5 points behind John McCain’s 2008 percentage despite the presence of Obama and the lack of official opposition. He picked up a similar percentage in Arkansas. Note to Team Romney: If you’re creating less enthusiasm among the grassroots than John McCain, you are in trouble.

So both candidate are in trouble with serious issues within their own party, and an indifferent reaction from most voters. As we turn to the fall mudslinging season, expect this election to come down to which option the voters dislike least.

Paul echoed this theme when he referred to believers as “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor.5:20), and in Romans when he said, “Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God” (Romans 13:1).

As human beings we are citizens of the United States. As born again believers bound for heaven we are pilgrims on a journey, merely passing through this world on our way to our eternal home. But as we pass through, we must be ambassadors for Christ. An ambassador is someone whose home is one country but they reside in another country. They are bound both by the laws of the country of their origin and by the country they are visiting. But an ambassador is more than just a visitor. He or she is a representative of the King. Jesus is our King and as long as we are passing through this world we must represent Him with honor.

In his First Inaugural Address, George Washington made an extraordinary claim. He said that the foundation of United States public policy would be the individual morality of its citizens. Specifically, Washington said, “The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.” He went on to explain, “their exists in the economy and discourse of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.” Washington, with these words, harkened back to the Declaration of Independence where life and liberty were laid as a foundation for those who longed to pursue happiness.

In his new book, The Tyranny of Clichés Jonah Goldberg sites President Woodrow Wilson as an example of the opposite of Washington’s sentiment about the place and consistency of American morality. Goldberg writes, “He was also the first president to hold that the president must have a vision for re-forming the United States. To that end, an enlightened Constitution must conform to those charged with imposing that vision, not the other way around. The pursuit of happiness was no longer an individual right but a state-driven agenda to be foisted upon a once free people.” President Wilson argued that, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.” He also openly proclaimed that the Bill of Rights is a dead-letter relic and those who think otherwise are simply, “bound up in mere Fourth of July sentiments.” Well pass me some firecrackers and call me a patriot because I still believe the principles revealed and applied in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Word of God are the right foundation for a free republic.

God has blessed our country with a form of government known as a Constitutional Republic. If we were a pure democracy we would be at the mercy of the majority. But because we are a Republic we have a representative government that protects the rights of those who find their opinions in the minority.

In Matthew 5, Jesus tells us our role as ambassadors. We are to be salt and light to all who are within our sphere of influence. That means we should know what is going on in our world and seek to influence the culture for good. In other words, we should be the best citizens of this world so that we can both shine as lights in the darkness and shout the goodness of God into eternity.

In a few short months we will go to the polls to select our leader. May we be reminded that we should exercise our right to vote with both the values of heaven and the restoration of our culture in mind.

• To underline the value of learning old English, including figures of speech: Dawkins refers to a section of a book which he has written, The God Delusion, the section itself being titled “Religious education as a part of literary culture.” He boldly states in this article that “A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian.”
• To allow people to understand European history: “European history, too, is incomprehensible without an understanding of the warring factions of Christianity and the book over whose subtleties of interpretation they were so ready to slaughter and torture each other.”

Dawkins then plunges into his primary point, a corrective rant of sorts, against which conservative Christianity will have much to say:

• To disprove the Bible as a moral guide:  Dawkins believes that the Bible is wrongly labeled as a moral guide. By encouraging people to read the Bible, he claims, this practice will cure this wrong view (“pernicious falsehood”). “I have an ulterior motive…. People who do not know the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality. This mistaken view may have motivated the “millionaire Conservative party donors”. I have even heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that, without the Bible as a moral compass, people would have no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself.”

Throughout the remainder of his article, the evolutionary biologist proceeds to share his arguments against belief in the Bible as a legitimate moral guide, and thus to disprove the legitimacy of the Bible in its entirety. His underlying argument (which is obvious) is that there is no God, and thus no God-given revelation. Dawkins points out what he considers to obvious observations that undermine Christian claims, observations that mere theologians are unwilling to see. He addresses all forms of Christianity, including those forms that largely deny what the Bible says anyway. This is very broad swipe and ends up being a group of confusing swings in every direction.

Dawkins’ arguments can be summarized thus: (1) The Bible is not legitimate because of what it is; (2) the Bible is not legitimate because of what it says; (3) the Bible is not legitimate because of what Christians say or say about it; (4) the Bible is not legitimate because of its core claims.

Argument #1: The Bible is not legitimate because of what it is

Dawkins confidently directs his initial attack squarely at the 10 Commandments. Dawkins believes he lands an instant knockout blow by simply referring to the 10 Commandments: “Do you advocate the Ten Commandments as a guide to the good life?”

Dawkins falters immediately. The 10 Commandments, though moral in nature, are not given as a guide to the “good life” as he suggests. They indeed are a measure of “good,” giving a glimpse of God’s perfect standard of living. However, the Bible is clearly teaches that these 10 Commandments (as representation of the entire Old Testament Law) are not given primarily as a moral guide. Instead the Bible shares that the Law (represented by these 10 Commandments) is given to show that mankind is not moral and does not measure up to God’s holy standard:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

In fact, the Bible is clear that no person can be “good” or “justified” by keeping the law (including the 10 Commandments). Instead, the law shows us that our only hope was to be rescued by God. And He God did make a way for us to be “saved” or rescued by allowing His Son, Jesus Christ, to take our penalty (for breaking God’s law) for us!:

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree “), (Galatians 3:10-13)

Argument #2: The Bible is not legitimate because of what it says

Dawkins, building on this wrong premise of the Bible being a moral guide, continues to show his hand by attacking some of the 10 Commandments individually:

The first two – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” – come from a time when the Jews still believed in the existence of many gods but had sworn fealty to only one of them, their tribal “jealous” god.

This simply is not true. This view comes from liberal Christian views that would reject what the Bible says, and who would impose an outside view on the Scriptures which is not contained in the Scriptures. Dawkins is fine applying this liberal evolutionary view to the Bible, but he misses three important facts:

1. As revealed in the Bible, the patriarchs (progenitors of the nation Israel) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all monotheistic. They had communication interactions involved just one God, which was initiated by God Himself.
2. God is revealing Himself to the Israelites. Regardless of Israel’s history or proneness to polytheism, He is declaring what is true.
3. Israel as a nation, receiving God’s declaration, was told this: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4) There was no evolving of views as implied by Dawkins (and liberal theologians). They were instantly monotheistic as a nation around the same time that the 10 Commandments are given. (The book called Deuteronomy means “second law,” and the 10 Commandments are repeated a second time in the very chapter where “the LORD is one” is declared….)

Dawkins continues to hammer, in his mind, more of the 10 Commandments. He believes he undermines the veracity of the Fourth Commandment (“Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy”) because of a harsh penalty that accompanied certain violations of that command (the death penalty).

Here we need to point out that Dawkins assumes that no God exists, and so all these commands are conjured up by crazed men. However, the Bible declares the existence of God as the Creator of the Universe, a holy God who deserves recognition and worship as such. One cannot parse the Bible in pieces and create a context of one’s choosing – Dawkins is doing just that.

As God Himself reveals in the Bible, He created all the universe, including his highest creation, the human race. These highest of creators are logically expected by God to worship Him and honor Him as their Creator in the ways He communicates. What is so hard to understand about that? Though the Sabbath penalty is a harsh one (as it was given to the nation of Israel), it made the point: God deserved His day of attention each week, per His commandment and per His design. Worship of God was no small matter, and God wanted the Israelites to understand the consequences of not doing so. It was that big of a deal.

From the Fourth Commandment Dawkins proceeds to the Fifth Commandment (“Honor thy father and thy mother”). He jumps backward in time (and in the Biblical text) to where God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Dawkins is convinced that this is a violation of the Sixth Commandment: “do not kill.” Dawkins may not remember that God actually did not have Abraham kill Isaac (which then did not violate anything). To be fair, the Bible is also clear that Abraham did not know that God would prevent him from killing Isaac, but he was certain that God would raise up Isaac if he did go through with it (Hebrews 11:17-19).

This may bend Dawkins the wrong way. However, God does reveal that He knows what He is doing whether we can understand it or not. God accomplished what He desired in Abraham’s life. Further, Abraham was to the point that, having been called by God, having walked with God for years, and having been given a son in his old age, he was fully confident that God could be trusted. That is the greater context of the offering of Isaac.

Dawkins further objects to the Sixth Commandment, stating that the command “do not kill” really meant, in practice, do not kill those of your own tribe. This is simply not true. Again, Dawkins assumes that God is a myth, that men made up this text, and that all killing is condemned. He errs on all counts.

In the very beginning, in the Garden of Eden, God issued the warning of death for eating of the forbidden tree. Death is God’s justice, not man’s made-up choice. God, as the Creator of the Universe, is the One Who makes the rules based upon Who He is (His nature and character). He judges human beings and nations, and throughout the Bible, often dispenses His justice on some human beings through the hands of others. In fact, one only has to read to the ninth chapter of the Bible, Genesis 9, to see that God required men to hold other men accountable (the basis for human government). In Genesis 9:6 God commands Noah, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” This is reflected all the way into the New Testament where the government is said not to carry the sword in vain. Government exists to protect those that obey the law and to punish those that do not (some crimes even requiring capital punishment).

Therefore, “you shall not kill” in context means that you do not take matters into your own hands and murder someone. God holds the arm of justice, whether judging individuals or nations. We do not.

Argument #3: The Bible is not legitimate because of what Christians say or say about it

Dawkins mocks some Christians who make claims he rejects, and uses these to discard Christianity for yet another reason. It might be good for him to exercise reason. It would only be fair (and reasonable) to acknowledge that Christians do not claim to fully understand their Maker nor all of the commands given by Him any more than scientists claim to understand all that science involves. We both accept much on faith based upon what we do understand.

It is fair to say that ridiculous statements and actions by Christians (of which Dawkins gives examples) may cause Bible believers to look foolish (as they often have). However, these examples no more invalidate Christianity than previously held views of a flat earth or a geo-centric  universe invalidate Dawkins’ pursuit of any field of science. Further, just because some “sophisticated” theologians, as Dawkins puts it, reject what the Bible says and seek to back-pedal and avoid obvious interpretations does not mean that all Christians have abandoned what the Bible says.

Argument #4: The Bible is not legitimate because of its core claims

Dawkins finally jumps to several central themes of the Bible, which he wholly rejects (and which all who reject God must reject). Dawkins rejects the historical Adam (by which sin entered the world), and thus he rejects the concept of sin. Logically, then, he rejects the payment for  sin by Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, which He transacted by dying on the cross for the sins of mankind.

Since Dawkins rejects God as an evolutionist, he cannot understand that God revealed this plan of rescue (salvation). Since He refuses to believe in anything supernatural, he is left with no good options, and scorns the idea of God revealing truth to mankind. Since Dawkins rejects sin, he offers no explanation for evil, but sees no reason for its resolution – he rejects the only possible Source for its resolution.  Maybe to Dawkin’s own surprise, the Bible is not caught off guard by this:

For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20-21)

Summary

Dawkins accurately states that the Bible is not a “moral book.” It is much more than that. It is true that the Bible is full of instructions in righteousness for those that believe in God and seek to obey Him. However, it also does not shy away from accurately recording the history rebellious actions of those who failed to do so or refused to do so.

The Bible claims to be the revelation of the one true God, the Creator of the Universe, Who clearly and honestly presents the human race in all of its immoral and rebellious detail while declaring Himself to be the only solution to mankind’s core problem – sin. God did so by sending His only begotten Son to bear the penalty for the pathetic and helpless human race. God accomplished this in such a way that He could remain holy while receiving the justice His holiness demanded, and yet forgive the sins of those that believe in His Solution. God sent His only begotten Son to suffer the sin penalty for the world by dying on the cross, that He might save those that believe in that Payment.

It is not unreasonable to accept a Divine Creator Who has the sovereign reign of the universe, and Who is holy and metes justice as He sees fit according to that holiness. He is beyond our understanding, but has communicated with us at times directly, through His prophets, through the written Word, and through His Incarnate Son. God’s communications truly make perfect sense, if you accept them at face value.

We are all for people reading the Bible, even if they are encouraged to read it by enemies of the Bible. However, it is Dawkins that may need to read the Bible more, without the assumptions or explanations of men who reject it. It is then possible to gain what the Scriptures truly have to offer from God Who has everything to offer.

Every month many Americans have to review their income and figure out how to pay the bills. Most of us know that you can’t spend more than you have, but this concept has yet to be understood by many Members of the United States Congress. National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has released the 2011 Congressional Ratings. NTU President Duane Parde said, “For every single Taxpayers’ Friend who bravely sought to conquer Washington’s mound of fiscal woes, four Big Spenders worked to make the pile of problems even more difficult to climb.” Iowa is no different.

The purpose of the NTU score given to each Member of Congress is to “measure the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes.” A Member can receive a score from 0 to 100. We as taxpayers want to see as high a score as possible, for this implies the Member is working hard to reduce the burden on the taxpayers.

How does NTU arrive at the score for each Member of Congress? For 2011, they analyzed every roll call vote and “selected all votes that could significantly affect the amounts of federal taxes, spending, debt, or regulatory impact.” NTU looked at a total of 337 House and 234 Senate roll call votes.

So how does Iowa fare? As we look at the Senate, Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin have a HUGE difference in their scores. Grassley’s average score for the last five years is 75 percent, whereas Harkin’s average over the same period is 5.4 percent. It is easy to see that Grassley and Harkin are working against each other in the Senate and Senator Grassley is friendlier to the taxpayers of Iowa.

The House is a little bit of a different story. For 2011, we see scores ranging from 76 percent to 20 percent, but as we look at the data from the past five years we see that the low scores have improved. For in 2009, we had scores ranging from 92 percent to 2 percent. Representative Steve King is friendlier to the taxpayers of Iowa in the House. Representative Tom Latham is next in line. At the bottom of the pile is Representative Dave Loebsack.

This year we are going from five House seats to four House seats due to redistricting from the U.S. Census data. All five of our current elected House Members are running in an election this year, and it is time to get involved. If you are worried about the impact of the taxes you pay and how your tax dollars are being spent, then answer the call to get your candidate elected!

Jennifer Crull is an IT Specialist with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, IA.  This article is from rom Public Interest Institute’s IOWA TRANSPARENCY NEWSLETTER is available at www.IowaTransparency.org.  Republished with permission.

Having said that, those of us who were up for it had the opportunity to work out side by side with these guys, join in training exercises, and a few of us were invited to SCUBA school and other training that allowed us into the interworking of this elite unit. It was a tremendous opportunity and a time of growth in my life. And to top it off, I gave my life to Christ mid-tour in my duty there. That was a dramatic transformation.

That’s enough about me. At TEAM 1, our compound was separated from Basic Underwater Demolition School (BUDS) by only a chain link fence. I saw every class of young sailors aspiring to be SEALs from 1989 – 1994. Only 30% actually made it; 70% “rang out” and went back to the fleet (BUDS students rang a bell when they quit). They were still better men for trying, but they would not be SEALs. Of the 30% that made it, a small fraction of them were part of the “first time, every time” club. These were the guys that passed every test, every physical challenge, every everything the first go-around. Most of yesterday and todays SEALS didn’t. Most of them failed something: got washed-back a week or more in training, got injured, or had some kind of setback. But those that persevered, even after failing once or more, still ended up wearing the Trident. When they HALOed into the drop zone with 7 of their squad mates, on a mission, their test scores didn’t matter anymore, “we’re the Navy SEALs and we’re here to get you out” (a line from the cheesy Navy SEAL movie with Charlie Sheen).

This reminds me of Christian ministry. The sad truth is that less than 30% of people who attend church ever get involved in the ministry of the Church. Now, I am not talking about church chores. I am not talking about ushering, parking lot duty, and the other things that must be done around the church. Those are a given. We are all part of this family and we all need to pull our weight to help make church happen. What I am talking about is the ministry of making disciples. Of the 30% who take the command seriously, a very small percentage of them are part of the “first time every time” fraternity. These are the ones who carry their passion to make disciples from their conversion through their entire Christian life. However, for the rest of us, we are usually washed-back a few times, like a would-be SEAL that fails a dive exam.

The reasons we stop making disciples are many. Maybe we get busy with our lives. Kids and jobs and little league sap all of our time and energy, and somewhere along the way we stop seeing all of those activities as opportunities to connect with people who need Jesus. Maybe we are so busy doing church, we forget to be the church. Yes people need to be helped to their seat on Sunday morning, and yes people want coffee after service, but more than anything, people need to come to know Jesus; either for the first time or they need to grow in His grace and knowledge. This is not a condemnation. We are loved and accepted fully by God based purely on what Jesus did for us, not what we do for Him. This is not about that. This is about living the life that we were created for; a life that glorifies God and is used by Him to set men free.

Whether you are gifted to be an evangelist and preaching the gospel and seeing people come to Christ is like breathing to you, or you are a Titus 2 woman teaching the next generation what it looks like to be a godly mother and wife; we are all called to make disciples (Matt 28:19). Like the SEALs, you don’t have to be in the “first time every time” club to be a disciple-maker. If you have lost focus on your mission to make Jesus known; don’t ring out, don’t quit. Jump back in the surf-zone and be washed with the waves of His mercy. Look to Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith. Let His free-flowing grace towards you stir your heart to share it with someone else. HOOYA!

For those of you who are now a bit confused let me explain. In a 1998 article for New Yorker American novelist, editor, and professor Toni Morrison declared President Clinton to be “our first black President…blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.” That phrase was picked by many Clinton supporters and repeated until even the Congressional Black Caucus acknowledged it to be true. On September 29^th, 2001, Texas Democrat Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson who was then serving as the chair of the Caucus said that Clinton “took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.”

It strikes me as ironic that according to liberals the first black president was not actually black and the first gay president is not actually gay. In liberal land it isn’t necessary to actually be what you are reputed to be if you simply embrace the right ideas. For President Clinton being black meant supporting an agenda approved by the national black leadership. It had nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with ideology.

The same is true for President Obama and his sudden Newsweek anointed gayness. President Obama is no more gay than President Clinton is black. But reality doesn’t matter to the Left. Reality isn’t real in any meaningful sense. It is only a concept to be twisted until the truth is wringed out of it so that the gatekeepers of politically correct thinking can assign meaning. It all makes me wonder how long it will be before some other left wing publication will declare President Obama to be the first female president.

But for conservatives, reality is attached to the facts as they are in the real world. Concerning President Obama’s announcement that his evolution has led him to the revelation that gay is ok the facts are:

1. North Carolina just became the 30^th state to pass an amendment to their constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. North Carolina’s amendment goes even farther by banning civil unions. The amendment passed by eleven percent.

2. According to a new USA Today/Gallup survey 40 percent of Americans say President Obama’s public support of gay marriage will affect their votes. Of that number, 26% say they are less likely to vote for Obama and just 13% are more likely.

3. The same poll also revealed that among independents, 23% say they are now less likely to vote for Obama.

That poll might mean three strikes and you’re out for an Obama second term. South Carolina Congressman and stalwart Obama defender Rep. James Clyburn broke ranks with the President saying his support for same-sex marriage does not go far enough. He thinks the President shouldn’t leave something as important as marriage up to individual states. Rep. Clyburn is the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. In an MSNBC interview Clyburn said, I, like the president has evolved to a point of marriage equality. But he went on to say, “However I depart from the president on the state-by-state approach. If you consider this (marriage) to be a civil right…and I do…. I don’t’ think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach.”

While I certainly don’t believe same-sex marriage is a civil right I absolutely agree that it is an issue that is too important to be left up to individual states. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution would force a state like South Carolina to accept same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. That would have the effect of nullifying South Carolina’s tenth amendment right to define marriage by allowing another state’s definition to take precedent. Complete chaos would be the order of the day.

When President Obama announced his advanced evolved state of enlightenment on same-sex marriage I put a Facebook post of my best E-Trade baby shocked face. Most of the readers got the joke and agreed that the only thing shocking about President Obama’s announcement is the his honesty. Let’s hope this president doesn’t decide to put our country on the line in a prizefight or a poker game. He telegraphs his punches and bluffs with all the subtleness of a charging rhinoceros. His avid support for the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act drained all of the history out of his “historic” announcement.

In an obvious tip-of-the-hat to the rainbow as a symbol of the LGBT community Newsweek saw fit to grace Obama’s head with a rainbow halo. How ironic both the LGBT community and Newsweek would both choose a symbol that harkens back to the ultimate example of God’s judgment.

Washington, DC

“Dr. Calhoun is a pioneer in the recent field of perinatal hospice, which takes principles from end-of-life hospice and applies them to the care of mother, child and family upon diagnosis of a terminal fetal abnormality,” said Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “Perinatal hospice offers a humane and caring option for parents and their unborn child, rather than just abandoning them to abortion.”

Dr. Calhoun’s paper for the Lozier Institute is available here.

Last week, Dr. Calhoun testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution on the subject of perinatal hospice.  The subcommittee examined the current legal regime in the nation’s capital that allows abortion, for any reason, up to and beyond viability to the moment of birth.  The subcommittee also heard testimony on proposed legislation to ban abortion in the District of Columbia after the fetus has reached 20 weeks gestation, based on their ability to feel pain at that point. Dr. Calhoun’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution is available here.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute was launched in 2011 as the education and research arm of Susan B. Anthony List. The CLI is a hub for research and public policy analysis on some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and nations around the world. The CLI website features commentaries, reviews and blog posts by an array of policy experts and scholars whose work covers statistics, medicine, bioethics, health care and law.

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a statement earlier today as 43 dioceses, hospitals, schools and church agencies across the nation filed 12 lawsuits challenging the federal Health and Human Services mandate on contraceptive services. Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York applauded the filings, saying the HHS mandate violates religious freedom.

His statement follows …

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.”

The mandate would require many Catholic and other religious institutions to cover medical services that are in opposition to their religious beliefs. The president’s announced accommodation still makes an unacceptable distinction between houses of worship and their ministries, and still requires all non-exempt employers to facilitate the objectionable coverage.

For news coverage visit www.catholicnews.com.

UPDATED ACTION ALERT ON HHS MANDATE

The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA), affiliated with the U.S. Catholic bishops, has a new action alert on the HHS mandate. A sample message is available at www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292. Please send a message to HHS about your support for a rule that would allow all organizations and individuals to offer, sponsor and obtain health coverage that does not violate their moral and religious convictions.

The primary focus of the alert is the federal Department of Health and Human Services “Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)” published March 21. HHS is seeking comments on how the final rule for the contraceptive mandate published Feb. 15 can accommodate religious organizations. Unfortunately the ANPRM does not correct the fundamental problems in the mandate. A final rule on the matter of the ANPRM will be issued at a subsequent unspecified date.

The full text of the USCCB’s comments on ANPRM is available:www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf.

A secondary focus of the alert is legislation. Members of Congress are urged to co-sponsor and promote the passage of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467).

Thanks for all you do in support of this issue.

AND FINALLY,

Dioceses are putting together their plans for the “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom. It will be held June 21-July 4.

During the Iowa Catholic Conference board meeting last week, Des Moines Bishop Richard Pates announced an “Independence Celebration Walk and Picnic,” which will take place as a part of the fortnight on the early afternoon of Sunday, July 1. It will consist of a walk in downtown Des Moines to the state Capitol grounds and will be followed by a picnic. Go to www.dmdiocese.org/religious-liberty.cfm for more information.

Tom Chapman is the Executive Director of the Iowa Catholic Conference

State Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale) is the Senate Republican Whip and a former Congressional Candidate.  He endorsed Sweeney last week.  He wrote:

Iowans across the state will be heading to the voting booths in less than 3 weeks. We as a state face some very challenging times, and leadership is needed in Des Moines now more than ever. This is why I am writing you today, I have personally seen that leadership by Annette Sweeney.

I began working with Annette in 2009, when she was a freshman Representative and I was in State Senate. At the time Republicans were in the minority, and the Democrats controlled both chambers with sizeable majorities and the Governor’s office. Yet during that time I witnessed Annette Sweeney’s ability to work both parties in each chamber and the governor’s office to pass some very important legislation that helped Iowa veterans apply and receive home loans. That legislation passed the Iowa House 100-0 and the Senate 50-0.

Annette’s leadership and passion for this state is on display everyday when she is in Des Moines, at work in the district or leading a trade mission to South Korea and China. Annette saw an opportunity for Iowans and she took it. That trade mission led to the opening of those markets to Iowa’s farmers and manufactures.

When House Republicans took the majority after the 2010 elections, we saw Annette become Chair of the House Agriculture Committee were she worked to promote rural Iowa and its family farms. She led the way to defend our farmers from some unscrupulous groups and actors. Annette’s bill the Ag Protection Act not only passed both chambers with large bi-partisan support and signed into law; it has been duplicated and passed by 8 other states.

However the most important achievements of Annette Sweeney happened this year. During the budget debates, Annette submitted an amendment that would end state funding for abortions and defend the unborn. This amendment became known as the Sweeney Amendment. Many in the past have tried to take on this challenge and they failed. Yet Annette was the only one in recent memory to have her Pro-Life amendment pass the Iowa House with bi-partisan support and force the Democrats who control the Senate be on record on this extremely important issue.

This is why I am endorsing Representative Annette Sweeney in this primary race. She has demonstrated over her career the leadership, passion and effectiveness that Iowans so desperately need. Annette just isn’t going to Des Moines to pass the time, Annette Sweeney is going to Des Moines to make a difference. Annette wants to make Iowa great again, and with your support we will. I urge you to vote for Annette Sweeney on June 5th for House District 50.

State Senator Sandy Greiner (R-Keota) endorsed Sweeney in an email today.  She wrote:

On Tuesday, June 5th, the people of House District 50 have a clear choice when they vote to re-elect Conservative Republican Annette Sweeney to the Iowa Statehouse.

I am a former member of the Iowa House and current member of the Iowa Senate.  I am also a 5th generation family farmer, wife, mother, grandmother and conservative.  I had the honor of meeting Annette Sweeney in 2008. As you can imagine with similar backgrounds we became great friends, and over the past 4 years Annette has proven herself to be a tireless advocate for Iowa agriculture.

I have worked in public policy and politics for the last 30 years, the last 20 years from the inside.  I have seen legislators with an assortment of styles come and go.  And I can tell you that Annette Sweeney is an uncommon legislator – she stands out because she instinctively knows how to represent her district without making a dozen phone calls around her district to see how she should vote.   Annette is a natural leader.  Her leadership was recognized when she was appointed to Chair the House Agriculture Committee.  

As Chair, Annette has used her position to strengthen family farms in Iowa. Just this year, Annette led the fight to protect family farms to make sure people applying for jobs are real people and not PETA activists. Annette’s bill was called the Ag Protection Act, which passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support and Governor Branstad signed into law.

When Annette isn’t busy representing her constituents, you can find her singing in the church choir, announcing at a cattle show, delivering cookies to farmers at the elevator or out doing chores.  Annette is an outstanding person who never stops working. And that work ethic is the reason she is quite simply an outstanding legislator. 

Annette exemplifies the qualities Iowans expect in their elected officials. Frankly, we could use more people like Annette in the legislature.

I am proud to call her my friend, and I ask you to Vote to re-elect Annette Sweeney to the Iowa Statehouse on June 5th.

It should be noted that State Representative Grassley has a key supporter in his grandfather, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA).