In a 7-2 vote, the court ruled the Arizona law was trumped by the federal “motor voter” registration law.

The decision split conservatives on the High Court, with Associate Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority and fellow conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting.

The court’s liberal wing sided with Scalia, as did Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In his majority opinion, Scalia wrote that Arizona was precluded “from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself.”

Thomas, writing the dissenting opinion, argued that the U.S. Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”

The decision comes as a heated national debate over immigration intensifies in the Senate.

Supporters of a bipartisan immigration reform bill hope to move it out of the Senate by the end of the month with a strong vote. Republican opponents of the bill argue more provisions should be added to the bill to ensure the border is better secured.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday affirms a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 supersedes the Arizona’s Proposition 200, which was approved by the state’s voters in 1993.

The National Voter Act does not mandate that voters must prove citizenship in order to obtain registration forms to vote.

The liberal Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) praised the high court’s decision.

“At a time when states are engaged in voter suppression efforts, today’s opinion is an important reaffirmation that the text and history of the Elections Clause give the federal government broad power to preempt state law in order to protect the right to vote in federal elections,” CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans said in a statement.

But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized the ruling, saying it would increase voter fraud. He said he would file an amendment to the Senate immigration reform bill to counteract the high court’s decision.

“This hole in federal statutory law allows non-citizens to register and thereby encourages voter fraud,” Cruz wrote on his Facebook. “I will file a commonsense amendment to the immigration bill that permits states to require I.D. before registering voters.”

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) said she was “pleased” with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Last November, as Arizona State University students lined up to vote, some were turned away or forced to cast ‘provisional’ votes because they had registered to vote via a federal voter registration form,” Sinema said in a statement.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision, which requires Arizona elections officials to accept the federal registration form as a valid document, reaffirms our students’ right to register and vote. “

Arizona has repeatedly faced legal challenges over laws related to citizenship and immigration. It is the state that passed a controversial law allowing law enforcement officials to arrest people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

The law struck down by the Supreme Court on Monday is similar to measures in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee. There are also 12 other states considering similar legislation, according to The Associated Press.

Ian Murphy, a liberal freelance writer with Salon.com, AlterNet.org and similar such “progressive” publications, tweeted back: “He’s not a Marxist.”

“We’ll split the difference,” I replied.

The implication behind Murphy’s brief comment is both clear and profound. While he, a proud leftist, inexplicably remains in denial of Obama’s patently evident Neo-Marxist socio-political worldview, he has, nonetheless – and along with a fast-growing number of his “progressive” counterparts – finally come to acknowledge that Barack Hussein Obama, 44th president of these Divided States of America, is, indeed, a grade-A tyrant.

In recent months, as this administration has been rocked by self-inflicted scandal after self-inflicted scandal, a vibrant, three-dimensional picture of Mr. Obama has begun to emerge. So obvious and outrageous are his abuses of power that many of his sycophantic holdouts are finally taking a second, less-jaundiced look at their Dear Leader.

For example, after it was learned that the Obama IRS was intentionally targeting conservative, Christian and Jewish organizations and individuals for harassment and political intimidation, Jon Stewart, liberal comedian and host of “The Daily Show,” did a scathing spot in which he told the president, “You’ve vindicated conspiracy theorists.”

More recently, in response to the IRS and NSA scandals, “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno joked of “Snoop Obama”: “We wanted a president that listens to all Americans,” he said. “Now we have one.”

Both the liberal New York Times and hard-left filmmaker Michael Moore have similarly opined that the Obama administration has “lost all credibility,” while left-leaning Politico observed that, “Nothing brings the left and the right together quite like government snooping.”

This is the tip of the iceberg. Liberals are running from Obama like Occupy Wall Streeters from Irish Spring. Each of these scandals (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS-gate, spying on the media, NSA spying on the American people, et al.) are, ostensibly, grievous enough, when taken alone, to rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

When taken together, however, they are manifestly impeachable.

Unfortunately, I doubt Congress has the courage to do it. It would take a bipartisan, consensus effort. We’re still not there yet. Even so, we’ve come a long way. No reasonable person, liberal or conservative, can, in good faith, still deny that Barack Obama is the most lawless president in American history.

Oh what a difference a couple centuries make. While Benjamin Franklin famously warned, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” President Obama – with his hand caught in your information cookie jar – now assures us that Franklin had it all wrong:

“[O]ne of the things that we’re going to have to discuss and debate is how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy because there are some tradeoffs involved.”

Yikes.

“The president is conducting an all-out assault on the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens,” responded Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, one of the fastest-growing civil rights legal organizations in America.

“Electronic data collection on this massive scale clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. It is tantamount to having a government official sneak into your home or business and copy all your papers, records, and personal effects. The fact the government may not immediately use copied material except when it needs it is irrelevant. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit searches and seizures without probable cause only if the government uses the information,” he said.

“We cannot justify such massive collection of American citizens’ data by any government agency under the guise of preventing crime or even terrorism.

This government overreach is an indictment on both political parties, as both have been involved in authorizing these unconstitutional acts. Our government leaders and bureaucrats have forgotten the price of liberty and are too willing to give up liberty for a little security,” concluded Staver.

This isn’t a left or right issue. This is about freedom. This is about the rule of law. Barack Obama has exposed himself as an enemy of the Constitution, an enemy of the American people – all of the American people – whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.

Liberals, let’s agree to disagree where we disagree. Likewise, let’s agree to agree where we agree.

Here we are at the midpoint of the Obama years, assailed on every side by looming consequences of liberal hubris and liberal corruption. But the Obama Scandals don’t get me all riled up with partisan outrage. What’s the surprise? If liberals in the media, in the academy, and in politics stigmatize conservatives as monsters, racists, sexists, homophobes, why be surprised that little Lois Lerner wants to please her teacher? 

Why wouldn’t the Democrats want to do immigration reform and never mind the consequences to low-paid Americans? It’s heads I win if it passes and Democrats get another 10 million votes or tails you lose if it fails and everyone from President Obama to Chris Matthews gets to blame the anti-Hispanic Republicans for the disaster.

It’s misleading to say that the social consequences of the welfare state are “unintended.” We know what the liberal welfare state does to people. 

I occasionally rile up my liberal friends by noting that a century ago the rich were fat and the poor were thin, but today the rich are thin and the poor are fat. Same with work. Back then the poor worked all the time; today the rich work all the time. Liberals don’t like to hear stuff like that.

But look at the Current Population Survey. HINC-05(xls) shows that, of the 29.5 million households in the U.S. with no earners, fully 15 million are in the lowest income quintile. But there are 46 million U.S. households with two earners or more. One million are in the lowest income quintile and 18 million are in the highest income quintile. Imagine that: If you have two or more earners in the family there’s a 40 percent chance it will put you into the top 20%.

Let’s say it again. In a household where nobody works you have a 50 percent chance of being in the bottom 20%. In a household where two or more people work you have a 40 percent chance of being in the top 20%.

Things are pretty frustrating for conservatives right now. You could get really discouraged. But when the clouds are threatening and the world is dark it is well to remember how battles are won. They are won by the side that gives up last.

That’s why Jonah Goldberg’s recent column “Freedom: The Unfolding Revolution” is such a ray of sunshine. Liberals think that their government programs are the “wave of the future,” writes Jonah, but they are dead wrong. Their politics, whether class politics for the working class or today’s identity politics of race and gender, is nothing more than “gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.” Adds Jonah:

The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it’s still unfolding.

How did this libertarian idea get started, two thousand years ago in the Axial Age? It was based on the notion of individualism, the responsible self, people thinking and acting for themselves and forming new associations rather than going along to get along with the tribe.

Why did the West do this first, and not India and China, civilizations far richer and sophisticated than the European? According to Max Weber it was because Western city dwellers broke away from tribalism and, as individuals, formed new kinds of association in the cities while in India and China they did not. 

In India the caste system and in China the ancestor cult kept people from trusting each other in the city. They looked to their caste or clan outside the city for identity and protection. They could not bring themselves to burst the bonds of caste and clan to trust their fellow citizens in the city.

It is the responsible individual that created the modern world, and it is liberals, with their politics of identity and victim-hood, that are turning the clock back to a primitive age of tribalism. They are reinventing caste with their rage for credentialism, and reviving clan with their multiculturalism and race-card politics.

It makes complete sense that liberals sneer at the responsible individual, the busy bourgeois, the independent householder, the church member, and harass them. The bourgeois middle class with its businesses, its adaptability, its families, its work and its savings represent the existential threat to liberal power and its curdling tribalism.

We know full well the consequences of liberalism. They are manifesting themselves before our eyes in Chicago’s bloodbath and Detroit’s bankruptcy. 

Why weren’t you harassing those guys, Lois? Because if you could just have saved one life…

Christopher Chantrill (mailto:chrischantrill@gmail.com) is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his usgovernmentspending.com and also usgovernmentdebt.us. At americanmanifesto.org he is blogging and writing An American Manifesto: Life After Liberalism. Get his Road to the Middle Class.

“I think the biggest change hasn’t been in the pulpit. It’s been in the pews. Our faith has always been about compassion and it compels you to do something. If you took compassion or the principle of compassion out of the Bible, it would be in tatters because it’s all over the place.”

– Sen. Marco Rubio on why amnesty for illegal aliens is morally right

Is Sen. Marco Rubio correct when he says providing a blanket amnesty for illegal aliens is the “compassionate” response for Americans?

Is he correct when he says it’s the biblical response to America’s problem with immigration laws being broken?

While Rubio is right about the word “compassionate” being found frequently in the Bible, it is not found in the context of excusing lawbreaking, non-enforcement of duly enacted laws or borderless nations.

Quite the contrary.

The Bible clearly and consistently speaks to the opposite agenda.

For the benefit of those deluded into the belief that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a God who doesn’t respect borders and the rule of law, I have offered three previous Bible studies on the topic of illegal immigration:

The biblical position on illegal immigration

A Bible study on illegal immigration

Another Bible study on illegal immigration

As Rubio leads another national effort for amnesty, this time wrapped in citations of the Bible, it appears it is necessary to explore this topic for a fourth time.

For starters, I challenge anyone to check an exhaustive online or offline concordance for the word “border” or “borders” to get an appreciation of how many times God’s Word references these terms. While not all of them are relevant to our discussion, I count 169 references, most of them making the point that God cares about them. He cares about boundaries between nations. In fact, as I have previously pointed out, it is God Himself who invented nation-states back in Genesis 11.

Why did He do it?

It seems He scattered the world’s population and created the diverse languages in an effort to subvert man’s efforts to unite in a global kingdom under a false universal religion.

Interestingly, one of the prime motivations of those behind the promotion of borderless societies is this very same notion of regional government and global government and the breakdown of nationalism.

What was wrong at the time of the Tower of Babel remains wrong today. That should be clear to anyone and everyone whose standard of morality is the Bible.

So, where’s the confusion?

Some misguided Christian clerics cite a handful of random, out-of-context verses that might, possibly, in some way, maybe, be interpreted, if you use your imagination, to suggest we should just forgive and forget all transgressions and trespasses against our national sovereignty and our laws regarding our nation status.

Countless Bible studies have been conducted in America in recent years using some familiar citations about “strangers” and “aliens” and applying them to our current controversy:

Leviticus 19:33-34: And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 22:21: Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9: Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:19: Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Some churches have stopped right there after reading that last verse and decided they know all they need to know about their duty as Christians to illegal aliens.

“We’re supposed to treat them just like one born among us, according to the Bible,” they proclaim. “That means amnesty. It means all the benefits of citizenship.”

Not so fast. You can develop some really bad theology – not to mention politics – by reading the Bible out of context, by not fully understanding what is being said to whom and about whom.

Strangers that sojourn with you or live with you does not equate with illegal aliens. In fact, the corollary here, in each and every case, is that the children of Israel were “strangers” in Egypt. That’s why they were to treat their own “strangers” well, because they knew what it is like to be “strangers” in a foreign land.

Clearly, then, what it means to be a “stranger” is to be a foreigner. In the case of the children of Israel in Egypt, they were invited and, at first anyway, were honored guests. Later, they would be oppressed by a generation who “knew not Joseph.” But they were certainly not trespassers. They were certainly not in Egypt illegally. They were certainly not breaking the laws of the land by being in Egypt. In fact, they were commanded not to offend their hosts in any way (Genesis 46:28-34).

So, we must conclude that “stranger” does not equal “illegal alien.” Even when the term “alien” is used in the Bible, it seems to have the exact same meaning as “stranger.”

God loves the stranger, we’re told. You should, too. They should be treated with respect and dignity. They should not be mistreated. These foreigners should be given food and clothing when they are in need. That’s the clear message of the Bible – treat law-abiding foreigners and aliens with love and compassion.

The aliens and strangers of the Bible were expected to obey the Hebrew laws, though they were exempt from some. They were also treated differently than the children of Israel in that they could not own property; they could be bought as slaves and charged interest on loans.

Only if these aliens and strangers were fully converted as Jews – and that included circumcision – could they be landowners, partake of the Passover and be fully integrated into the nation of Israel.

In other words, even though the aliens and strangers of the Bible were not illegal aliens, they were still expected to fully assimilate into the Hebrew religion and culture before they could receive all the blessings and all the responsibility of full citizenship.

Further, keep in mind these godly instructions were meant not just for the governing authorities in Israel – the judges and kings – but, more importantly, for the people. These were personal instructions. And they are clearly good instructions for us all today.

If we want to be compassionate to the strangers and aliens of our world today, those law-abiding foreigners who desperately want to come to America and are patiently awaiting their turn, we need to be certain they don’t get squeezed out unfairly by those who broke the law and pushed ahead of them in line.

We shouldn’t be mean to those lawbreakers, either. We shouldn’t mistreat them. We should even forgive them. But they have to leave.

They haven’t been invited. They are not our guests. They are not just strangers; they are trespassers. They need to go back home and get in line like everyone else waiting to enter our country lawfully. They are victimizing others – both citizens and those legally awaiting citizenship opportunities. There’s nothing compassionate about enabling that kind of behavior.

Lastly, I want to introduce one more verse I think is very relevant. It is Deuteronomy 27:17: “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.”

There are two ways the targeting works. One way is for an outside group, often one that is anti-religion, to file a complaint asking the IRS to investigate a church they don’t like. The IRS responds to the complaint by opening an investigation and asking the church often hundreds of questions about its activities, with the threat of revocation of non-profit status. This is what lawyers call “selective enforcement” and it is unconstitutional. No one should be singled out in this way, especially because of collusion between the IRS and outside groups with an ax to grind.

 

The second way the censorship starts is for IRS officials to take their lead from high government officials, including the President, to decide which groups to target for disfavor.

This is apparently what happened to the “tea party” groups, but religious groups have also been targeted in this way.

Don’t believe it? Just ask Billy Graham. Last fall, the famed Christian evangelist publicly advocated on behalf of a ballot measure in his home state of North Carolina, taking a position that the President and other high government officials publicly opposed. The tax man was knocking at the door almost immediately. And while the expensive, time-consuming audit eventually ended without any finding of wrongdoing by Graham, a message was sent to every other religious group that might oppose government policy: the IRS can use its audit powers to harass you or shut you down simply for saying what you believe. That kind of intimidation is wrong–and unconstitutional.

While some Christian churches and organizations were targeted by the Obama administration for audits because of their alleged political activities, others were actually encouraged to engage in political speech in church. Encouraged by members of the Obama administration. 

Last June, during the Obama campaign’s election year push to mobilize black churches in support of his reelection, Michelle Obama, herself made an appeal to black churchgoers to get informed about politics. At a religious conference in Nashville, she said that there is no better place than church to talk about political issues.

 

“To anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues, you tell them there is no place better – no place better,” Obama told the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s 49th general conference, held in in Nashville, Tenn.

 

“Because ultimately, these are not just political issues – they are moral issues,” she said. “They’re issues that have to do with human dignity and human potential, and the future we want for our kids and our grandkids.”

 

“We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people,” he said, “and we’re going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS.” [Emphasis added]

 

While they won’t specifically tell people whom to vote for, the respected speakers will discuss “draconian” (hint) voter identification laws, and the Congressional Black Caucus expects the move will only help the Obama’s campaign.

That same month Holder gave a speech  before the Council of Black Churches  reminding the audience of its history fighting for equal voting right for minorities.

 

The attorney general told them his office is “aggressively” taking on the task of protecting that right, including challenging several state lawsuits that would overturn key provisions of the Voting Rights Act involving redistricting in Southern states and strict new voter ID laws that strips away the guarantee of equal access to the ballot box in the 2012 election.

Valerie Jarrett traveled to Atlanta, GA to speak at MLK’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in January of 2012.

 

On the Sunday before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett visited Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta to give a political speech, in support of her boss (Barack Obama) and congressional Democrats:

 

“Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress–well let me be specific–because the Republicans in Congress,” Jarrett told the crowd. According to the CBS affiliate in Atlanta, at this point, “Before she could finish her sentence, people in the congregation were laughing, and applauding.”

I think it’s very safe to assume that the Ebenezer Baptist Church was not audited as a result of that politicking.

Who would have ever thought that their biggest challenge would be the latter, the domestic side of the matter, or our own country’s traitors starting at the highest elected level possible?

Our country is blessed with Christianity in the hearts and homes of over seventy percent of all its legal citizens.  That my friends, is THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR LEGAL CITIZENS.  Please note that I did not say residents, because we have many people in our country that are not legal citizens, and this small portion of all residents happen to be other than Christians and the also happen to be our bogus president’s favorite subjects.

One element of this relatively small percentage, about four percent of Americans, of non-Christians are of the homosexual persuasion, titillatingly referred to as “gays”, who happen to be one of Obama’s near and dear groups for preferential treatment.

For many years gays in the military were ordered to more or less keep their sexual preference “under their hats” by the terminology “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” which needs no explanation of definition or elucidation in that its meaning is very self-evident.  But this tiny fraction of our citizens prevailed with the new top elected government official who issued a personal directive declaring the “DODT” order out of existence.

If ever any proof of dictatorship was ever needed, this directive from the top would surely qualify.  In other words, the tyrant at the top declared homosexuality an open and discussable subject.

But that wasn’t the end of the problems in the military as Obama began a vendetta against Christians everywhere but in the military in particular. I personally believe he started there in order to create unrest and dissension to further his plan to destroy the finest military machine in the world as a prelude to destruction of the country as a whole.  What strength does a country with a disassembled and troubled military force have in the world? If you answered, little to none, you would be absolutely right.

Recently I wrote a column outlining the steps Obama had been taking in the military co-opting Muslims for Christians for burial services of veterans. This was, in my opinion, particularly egregious conduct as ordered by Obama but another step to putting Christianity on a far back burner on its way to oblivion in the military.  Now as if to prove my point about his distaste for Christianity but for all Christians in the military, there are incidents occurring that put Christians down, and conservative Christians whenever possible.

An article by Todd Starnes of FoxNews.com was published on June 07, 2013 online headed “Soldier Told Not to Read Levin, Limbaugh or Hannity in Uniform” tells of a veteran member of the U. S. Army Band who is “facing retribution and punishment from the military for having anti-Obama bumper stickers on his car, reading books written by conservative authors like Mark Levin and David Limbaugh, and serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at his promotion party.

“Master Sgt. Nathan Sommers, a 25-year Army veteran and conservative Christian based at Fort Myer in Washington, believes his outspoken opposition to gay marriage prompted higher-ups to take a closer look at his beliefs. The recipient of an Army Commendation Medal and a soloist at the funeral of former First Lady Betty Ford, Sommers said his core beliefs are enough to mark a soldier for persecution in today’s military.”

I have seen enough articles of Christian military bashing that the notion of unfair and unnecessary treatment enters my mind.  The Obama Administration had better take into account that Christians are representative of more than SEVENTY PERCENT of the nation’s total population.  Those people who adhere to that religion are going to take this cruel and unusual punishment, solely because of their overwhelming majority, to their attention and demand a stoppage of such tactics by the Obama government.

Our troops put their lives on the line on the ground, on water and in the air, twenty-four-seven and expect at least a measure of respect for such risks.  But when our government leaders disrespect them and subjugate them into irrelevancy those good Christians are going to lash back at the offenders.

Stop harassing Army Master Sgt. Nathan Sommers and all other Christians in our military and for that matter, everywhere else in our country.  I say OUR COUNTRY because the current Administration of tax cheats and other un-American activities do not deserve to be American citizens if they can’t be good neighbors.
Comments

The House Armed Services Committee last week passed an amendment on H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act, that would protect Christians and members of other faiths.

The amendment was made necessary because of recent revelations that the Pentagon has been working with notoriously anti-Christian atheist activist Mikey Weinstein, founder of the misleadlingly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation, to craft a policy that could subject Christians who are caught talking about their faith to punishment, including court martial.

The Pentagon denies that’s the plan, trying to draw a distinction between “proselytizing” and “evangelizing,” which are synonyms in most dictionaries.

Weinstein is a far-left fanatic and loose cannon who has publicly stated that Christian evangelizing is tantamount to treason and that Christians should be punished, by the hundreds if need be. He also apparently has easy access to the upper echelons at the Pentagon and to left-wing bigshots such as former Ambassador Joe Wilson, he of “yellowcake” fame.

The amendment introduced by Republican John Fleming of Louisiana drew an objection from the White House, which released a message that states:

“Expansion and Implementation of Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members: The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the ‘conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member.’ By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.”

The statement also includes a threat that Obama will veto the bill if it arrives at his desk with the amendment intact.

The policy that has been developing at the Pentagon would also cover chaplains, not just ordinary troops, who try to persuade other military members to adopt Christianity or any other religion. Although coercing someone in religious matters has long been prohibited by the military branches, it’s never been perceived as a widespread problem until recently, largely due to Weinstein’s lobbying, by all accounts.

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein said. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

Weinstein is part of the cadre — dare we say cabal? — of foes of Christianity who seek through the courts, government agencies and legislation to force biblical religion out of public sight while installing their own religion, atheism, as a state-mandated faith. By calling atheism a “nonreligion” and hiding behind phrases like “separation of church and state” and “religious freedom,” the atheist agenda is advanced.

By threatening to veto the amendment to the defense bill, President Obama is continuing his Administration’s record of attacking biblical religion.

Liberty Counsel announces the launch of its new, 60-second, Hispanic radio program, Llamado de Libertad.

Hosted by Yuri Mantilla, Llamado de Libertad will follow the same format as Mat Staver’s Freedom’s Call with the goal to encourage, educate, and reach out to the Hispanic community.

Llamado de Libertad will be distributed via Amb-OS, or radio stations can download them via email links by contacting Charla Bansley at Media@LC.org.

The Hispanic Community believes in the same values as does Liberty Counsel—sanctity of life, family, and religious freedom. Llamado de Libertad fulfills a need in Hispanic broadcasting.

Please pray for this outreach into the Hispanic community.