Liberty's Call

Abortion is a Human Rights Issue

2012-01-24T11:15:00.001-05:00

Yesterday a sea of people braved the rain and mud and showedup in Washington D.C. to stand for the rights of the unborn.Among them were two GenJ clubs as well as GenJ students from Pennsylvania.

We stood out in the rain and cold hearing Speaker of theHouse John Boehner who said, “So I’ve never considered ‘pro-life’ to be a labelor a position. It’s just who I am.”

Several congressmen including Chris Smith of New Jersey and Sean Duffy of Wisconsin talked about how the pro-lifemovement is a human rights movement and 39 years under Roe v. Wade has been 39years when equal protection for unborn citizens has been ignored.

As I stood on Constitution Avenue and looked behind me, I saw a crowd of peoplestretching as far as I could see, and it gave me hope. The majority of peoplemarching were young people. Theycried out on behalf of their missing classmates. They are the ones passionate enough to come in the bad weather. They are the ones who are driven to seethe end of abortion in America.They are the ones who will lead onthis issue. It is inspiring.

-Post by Jeremiah Lorrig

2012-01-06T16:14:00.002-05:00

Haters Are Gonna Hate, ButTebow Is The Real Deal

I tend to pride myself on not following the latest “hype.” Ibalk at the idea of following trends just because they are trends.

As football star Tim Tebow rose in popularity, especiallyamong evangelicals, I dismissed him as just another Christian pop icon.

My family is really into football. My 16 year old brotherplayed on a homeschool football team for years and now plays wide receiver athis Christian high school. Tim Tebow was also homeschooled and played highschool footballl. We’re also huge Florida Gators fans. So needless to say, thisguy was a hero in my house. It seemed like everyone else was jumping on theTebow bandwagon and I was the only straggler…

But I was skeptical. Was this another Christian usingreligion for attention? Or was this guy for real? Well, I came to realize thatTim Tebow is by no means the only evangelical Christian in sports or even theNFL, but he is certainly the mostoutspoken.

Talk about someone who lives out the exhortation of Romans1:16 with abandon! Yes he prays on the field and points to the sky and he evenused to write Scripture references in his eye black before it was banned. Butmore importantly, Tim Tebow walks the walk. He uses his time off to go onmissions trips. He inspires homeschoolers. His teammates and his opponentsspeak highly of him and of his character. He prays before every game and singsworship songs on the football field.

So why do some have such animosity toward Tim Tebow? Maybesome are like me- skeptical of a star athlete’s very-public profession offaith. Maybe some are irritated by his success. Maybe he is just too outspokenabout his faith and that’s tough to swallow. And probably some just rootagainst the DenverBroncos… or used to root against the Florida Gators.

But as for me, I am thankful for Tim Tebow. I’m thankfulthat in a sea of athletes who reach the endzone and do a little jig for theirown glory, Tebow seizes any opportunity he can to point to Christ and to beoutspoken about Who gives him his talent and motivates him to excellence. TimTebow is the real deal, and he is the kind of role model I can encourage my 16year old brother to follow.

By Demi Bardsley

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-22T11:26:00.000-05:00

Dear Generation Joshua Members and Friends,

It has been a wonderful year for Generation Joshua. I am so blessed and honored to serve as thedirector of this program that has so many energetic and hard working youngpeople! My staff and I have seenthousands of young people like you – the future of America – all across the nationthis year. At teen tracks at homeschoolconferences, at our iGovern summer camps, and on the campaign trail in Virginia.

As 2011 draws to a close and families come together tocelebrate the holidays, let’s pause to remember the real reason for Christmas:the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to the Virgin Mary a little morethan 2,000 years ago.

Listen to what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said inhis Christmas 1944 address, during the height of World War II:

“Here, at home, we will celebratethis Christmas Day in our traditional American way - because of its deepspiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in ourlives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing thesignificance of this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortalPrince of Peace and Good Will.”

I’m reminded of the words of the prophet Isaiah, when hewrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “For unto us a Child is born,unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and Hisname shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, the everlastingFather, The Prince of Peace. Of theincrease of His government and peace there shall be no end…” (Isaiah 9:6-7)

I’m so encouraged by those words from Holy Scripture. Even if things sometimes look dark ahead,either in our personal lives or in our nation, Christmas is a wonderful time toremember the wonderful, everlasting light that springs forth anew because ofJesus’ birth.

And so, from all of us to all of you, Merry Christmas andhappy New Year!

Stay strong and courageous,

Will Estrada – Director

Joel Grewe –Deputy Director

Luke Mason – Program Administrator

Brady Kauk – Program Administrator

Demi Bardsley –Administrative Assistant

Glenn Bertsch –Staff Assistant

and Jeremiah Lorrig– GenJ Master Teacher

Thoughts on the Republican Presidential Primary

2011-12-16T10:54:00.002-05:00

Last night was the final debate for Republican Presidential primary before voting begins in the Iowa caucuses. Anyone following the race is probably aware of the frustrating confusion among Evangelical voters who have yet to find a favorite candidate. I feel the anxiety keenly. Despite having up to eight at one time to choose from, no one has the “it” factor for me; no one is the complete package. As a friend of mine says, 'no one has won my heart yet.' As things have developed from debate to debate, my hope for finding my ideal candidate has waned.

Four years ago I did have an ideal candidate; someone I could believe in and promote whole-heartedly. So I did, to the point that my older, wiser friends were concerned I would be crushed if he lost. But thanks to wise parents, and an even wiser and kinder God, the experience left me inspired to continue working, rather than give it up altogether. So now I come to the race without a horse. Most of my friends outside the beltway are cynical and despairing about our options for the Republican nomination. We have not found the next Ronald Reagan, and some aspects our country seem so bad that there is doubt even Reagan himself could fix them.

Think about this mindset. We're struggling as a nation, and who do we expect to save us? We're looking for a leader, for “the one”... in short, we're looking for a human messiah, a superman or woman. But wait – we already have a Savior! We don't need another messiah, nor will we ever find one in any man or woman. Isn't that what the liberal voters thought they had found in Obama four years ago? Statistics would indicate that even they are now realizing our President is not all they hoped him to be. We can smirk 'I told you so,' but are we not in danger of committing the same ignorance of misplaced hope for change?

Our country's motto is “In God We Trust,” and so it should always be. Perhaps now is the time to reconsider what we need in a president, and what should be acknowledged as only God's prerogative. As bleak as some things may appear, there are many battles that remain far from lost. Much is at stake in this election, from Supreme Court nominations to the looming health care monstrosity. We can work to remain a beacon for freedom and goodness in the world, or fade away into the abyss of relativism and apathy. Ultimately, what hangs in the balance is the future of America, and even the world. But no single person can bear responsibility for that which is solely in the hands of God. Perhaps our lack of individual leadership is exactly what will drive us to where we most need to be: on our knees before God, placing our hope in him alone, asking whom he would have us choose as a leader. May we never forget the responsibility we bear in voting is to our Creator who endowed us with this right in the first place.

America has had better presidents than the candidates we are offered in 2012. But no president has ever approached perfection, nor could one ever. It was not a single person that led the American people in our war for independence. Before George Washington, there was the Great Awakening – a movement that swept across America, inspiring people to live in the liberty Christ died to grant us. We became One Nation Under God, and so we should remain. These are our roots that we must return to; our foundation that we must unearth from the overgrown mound formed by years of pride and forgetfulness. We owe our greatness and success to no man, but God's blessing. So may God continue to bless America, and may Americans ever place our hope and trust in Him who truly saves.

Post Written By Grace Tate

The Definition of Courage

2011-12-07T11:37:00.001-05:00

On the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack it is worthremembering the lives and futures that were laid down so the safety and libertyof our nation could be preserved.

The USS Missouri standing guard over the USS Arizona.

I was privilegedto travel to Pearl Harbor earlier this year and visit the Arizona Memorial andstand on the deck of the USS Missouri. It stands guard over the site where the USS Arizona was sank, a sentinelstanding watch over the brethren who are entombed beneath the water. The men and women who died that day were heroesin every sense of the word. They stoodand fought as they were able, then died as courageous soldiers who can beheld up as the definition of courage for the generation to follow.

It is fitting to take the time to read President Roosevelt’sresponse:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — theUnited States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval andair forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at thesolicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and itsemperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, onehour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American islandof Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleaguedelivered to our secretary of state a formal reply to a recent Americanmessage. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existingdiplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

The USS Arizona Memorial - Pearl Harbor, HI

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japanmakes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or evenweeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese government has deliberatelysought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hopefor continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has causedsevere damage to American naval and military forces.

I regret to tell you thatvery many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have beenreported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese government also launched as attackagainst Malaya.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night Japanese forces attacked Wake Island.

And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensiveextending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speakfor themselves. The people of the United States have already formed theiropinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety ofour nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directedthat all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nationremember the character of the onslaught against us. . .

- President Franklin D. Roosevelt

And thus began the greatest conflict of the previouscentury. Let us remember their heroismand strive to be worthy of their sacrifice.

- Mr. G

Freedom Wall, National World War II Memorial. Photo credit: Rick Latoff

Too Far

2011-12-05T16:48:00.000-05:00

WARNING THE WORLD IS ENDING! …at least according to the internet

According to reports S. 1867 will end freedom in the United States by allowing for “permanent detention” of United States citizens.

The problem can best be summed up by my favorite Abraham Lincoln quote: “The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine.”

The fact is that rumors of our demise have been exaggerated. People on the left have been trying to take on the Department of Defense for awhile now, and they decided that S. 1867 was the way to do it. The real problem is that they have duped people on the right into joining them.

Even conservative stalwart Senator Rand Paul gave a speech on the topic.

But the fact is that this bill does not end civil rights in America. In fact, this bill doesn’t do what they say at all.

On page 426 of the bill there is a clause that allows the Armed Forces to detain covered persons from “subsection b”. The good news for people like me who hate federal law because it is so complicated is that subsection b is right there! It says that subsection b only includes those who were involved in the September 11 attacks, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban.

This part of the law doesn’t change anything from the status quo. I know people who have corresponded with Senator DeMint, likely the most outspoken conservative in the US Senate, and they agree that the text itself does not do what they claim.

-Posted by Jeremiah Lorrig

War Horse Movie Review

2011-12-02T14:45:00.010-05:00

Last night I saw a pre-release screening of Steven Spielberg’s latest film, War Horse that hits theaters on December 25th.

War Horse wrestles with the theme of bravery. It asks “What does it mean to be brave?” and “What is a good example of bravery?”

Unlike many movies that just ask questions, this movie actually helps the audience find answers.

Bravery is not just the cavalier charge of the noble horse solders. It is also an old man refusing to be proud. It is an energetic youth risking the machine gun fire to help save the lives of his friends. It is a wife standing by her husband in hard times. It is a little girl keeping her head when threatened by greedy solders. It is a grandfather staying above the foray, focusing on the task before him. Bravery is not one of these things, it is all of them.

There are great moments in the film like when an English solder exclaims to a German, “You speak English good!” and the German responds, “I speak English well.”

The most astonishing scene, however, is when the Joey, the War Horse, goes running through, over, and between the dark trenches and solders. That scene is nothing short of breathtaking and spectacular. Over all, Spielberg fills the film with epic shots of the English countryside, cavalry charges through flowery meadows, and sunsets.

Although some complain that the film is an emotional roller coaster, I believe that it is a story about bravery, sacrifice, and the joy that life can bring from unexpected places.

For the parents who are worried about the PG-13 rating (for implied war violence and thematic elements), I have a few words: War Horse does show the brutality of WWI, but without blood and guts. They made it for kids. You see that the war was hard, but the violence level is less than the violence in the classic Gary Cooper film, Sergeant York.

In fact, this is the first movie I have ever seen that feels like an old movie done today. It has the family friendly elements of a classic black and white film, but the creative stunning visuals from Spielberg, a powerful John Williams soundtrack, and the dazzling precision of modern effects.

For you horse lovers out there, I would say that the movie is a cross between King of the Wind and Sergeant York. It is a classic horse story that deserves a place beside Misty, Black Beauty, and The Black Stallion.

All told, I believe this to be the most inspiring family movie this year.

By Jeremiah Lorrig

Ask for this book for Christmas!

2011-11-30T15:28:00.002-05:00

When I sat down to read my friend Tim Goeglein’s new book, The Man in the Middle: An Inside Account of Faith and Politics in the George W. Bush Era, I was expecting a straightforward account of the Bush White House. It was just that – but a whole lot more. Tim shares his perspective on some of President Bush’s most important moments, particularly ones that Evangelical Christians cared deeply about, but he also lays out his vision of what is sorely lacking in America, and what should be done to raise our nation back to its rightful place as a “shining city on a hill.”

This is a must-read book. Conservatives and Christians will love to see Tim’s personal story of the goodness of God in our nation’s capital. Tim shares fascinating first-hand accounts about President Bush and the battle that is waged for conservative family values in the halls of the Congress and the White House – a battle that is usually only seen by Washington insiders. If you ever wondered how conservatives and Christians are making a difference in our country, this book shows how.

But then Tim does something truly beautiful. He doesn’t just tell a story. He shares the passionate vision that is on his own heart – both when he worked for President Bush and today as he works for Focus on the Family – of what is needed for the healing of our land.

Read The Man in the Middle. You will be inspired with a vision of how ordinary Americans can help restore our nation to godly greatness. Tim shows us that it doesn’t start in Washington, D.C. It starts with the family, it starts with individuals, it starts with churches. And that is the power of Tim’s book: he challenges each one of us to do our part to glorify God in whatever place He has put us.

This Christmas time, if you have a friend or loved one who cares deeply about our nation, get them The Man in the Middle as a Christmas present. And make sure that you read it yourself. You will be blessed and encouraged.

Stay strong and courageous,

William A. Estrada, Esq.

Director, Generation Joshua

You can get the book from Amazon.com here.

2011-11-23T12:44:00.002-05:00

Thoughts on the Republican National Security Debate

Below find an analysis of each candidates performance in Tuesday night's Presidential debate. Each candidates strengths are weaknesses are highlighted. What did you think of the debate?

Michelle Bachmann: Representative Minnesota 6^th District

Strengths: Due to her experience on the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Bachmann has a wealth of knowledge about our intelligence operations with other nations. Her answers to the questions were well informed and at many times connected with the audience. One of the highlights of her knowledge came out when she was questioned about foreign aid to Pakistan. Rep. Bachmann showed that when we pay foreign aid to a country we gain certain advantages from and within that country.

Weaknesses: While this was one her best debates Rep. Bachmann did not stand out as much as she needed to. Also some question the influence of foreign aid and. And while this was a good step for her, she is still facing attacks of her credibility from the media.

Herman Cain: CEO and Businessman

Strengths: Mr. Cain gave the debate a good dose of common sense. He provides solutions that make sense to the ordinary man. While he does not have any experience in an elected government position he has shown that it is not necessary. Mr. Cain is staunchly pro-Israel and is in complete support of the Israeli people. He has demonstrated that he understands that decisions must be made carefully and be fully thought through before they are acted upon.

Weaknesses: Experience is his biggest enemy. Since he has had little foreign policy interactions he does not have as much information as Rep. Bachmann or Speaker Gingrich or anyone else on the stage. Also, Mr. Cain tends to revert back to his “have a plan” catch phrase frequently. When questioned about supporting Israel if attacked by Iran he responded by saying that he would first make sure that Israel had a plan before making any decision. In order to overcome this problem Mr. Cain needs to find some staff in the intelligence community to help inform him about international issues.

Newt Gingrich: Former Speaker of the House and History Professor.

Strengths: Speaker Gingrich had an excellent debate. He showed the American people that he not only understands history and what has happened in the past but also understands what must be done in order to secure our country. The highlight of his knowledge came out during the discussion of the PATRIOT Act. He stated that while we need to preserve the rights of Americans in our criminal process, national security is a separate issue and the PATRIOT Act addresses that problem. Ron Paul took the position that the PATRIOT Act is a violation of liberty and said there were other ways law enforcement could use citing the Timothy McVeigh case. Speaker Gingrich responded by saying "Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says after we lose an entire American city we're going to find you." Speaker Gingrich showed he has the knowledge and understanding it would take to be president.

Weaknesses: The biggest issue now facing Speaker Gingrich is his stance on immigration. During the debate he stated we should not be throwing people out of the country who have lived in America for the past 25 years and obeyed all the laws, and that we should establish a board to review all cases. He adamantly stated that he would not give them US citizenship but would seek to make illegal immigrants legal and that he would secure the border. The other candidates correctly pointed out that he would be granting them amnesty by making them legal residents no matter their state of legality. Speaker Gingrich needs to carefully explain how this form of amnesty would work better than the last and show the American people his plan to secure the border.

Jon Huntsman: Former Ambassador to China and Governor of Utah

Strengths: Governor Huntsman was well served by his experience as an ambassador. He showed that he understands the workings between nations and that we need to make America the strongest nation. This came out most clearly when he was discussing the Chinese involvement in Afghanistan. He said that it was sad that America was fighting in the region but China was snatching up mining rights in Afghanistan. He correctly pointed out that we need to establish superiority in the world for America to succeed.

Weaknesses: His speeches were quite forgettable. Many of the points that he made were not unique to his view and had already been stated by the other candidates. He also continued to quote Ron Paul and made it seem as if he was supporting Rep. Paul for president. Governor Huntsman needs to separate his identity from the other candidates and tell us what he thinks not what has already been stated.

Ron Paul: Representative 14^th District Texas

Strengths: Rep. Paul showed himself to be (as he would say) a defender of liberty. He showed his position well and presented some areas that he saw liberty being eroded. He was easy to understand and got his point across the crowd.

Weaknesses: He does not understand foreign policy or national security well. While liberty must be protected it can never be done by sticking ones head in the ground and hoping that nothing will happen. Rep. Paul stated at the beginning of the debate that the founding fathers thought trading liberty for security was wrong. This is a gross misquote of Benjamin Franklin who actually said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Furthermore, when he was asked about supporting an Israeli attack on Iran he stated that it would never happen because a former MOSSAD agent said it was a bad idea. Israel has already attacked Iran and is set to do it again. The recent news about Iran’s nuclear program has Israel formulating plans. Rep. Paul means well but fails to grasp the gravity of an ostrich policy.

Rick Perry: Governor of Texas

Strengths: This was Governor Perry’s best debate to date. He showed that he understands international relations and that America must provide for the security of it’s citizens. His insights on immigration were notable. As a border governor Rick Perry has had a “hands on” experience with federal government law enforcement failures as regards immigration. Perry emphatically stated that he would secure our border through the use of our current laws. His performance overshadowed his major gaff in the last debate (he could not remember the third department out of three that he wants to cut as president), and has shown himself to still be a contender.

Weaknesses: Governor Perry has to do much more than simply do well in a debate to come back in this presidential race. He has to show the American people that he has what it takes both in a debate and in the field if he is to maintain hope he could gain the Republican Party nomination. Cohesive thoughts in the debates are a must, and tonight his thoughts often appeared disjointed. Many times he stumbled over the point he was trying to make and the American people are looking for someone who can communicate with conviction and certainty. Governor Perry should concentrate on condensing his ideas so he can communicate them clearly and effectively.

Mitt Romney: Former Businessman and Governor of Massachusetts

Strengths: Mitt Romney used his oratory skills to his advantage. He looks and sounds professional during each debate. He showed his ability to communicate when he asked Governor Huntsman about the troop withdrawal. While Governor Huntsman stated that we need to draw down on the amount of troops that we have stationed in Afghanistan, Governor Romney correctly stated that a quick withdraw like Huntsman was promising would lead to the destabilization of the region and ultimately erase all that we worked for. Mitt Romney showed that he understands our national security threats and that he has a plan to deal with them.

Weaknesses: Mitt Romney has flat lined at the top of the polls. He has remained at a consistent 25% and hasn’t deviated from that line for a while. The rest of what Governor Romney said last night wasn’t unique to him and had already been stated by numerous candidates. In order for him to widen his lead he must present his ideas in a different way than the other candidates have.

Rick Santorum: Former Senator from Pennsylvania

Strengths: Senator Santorum showed that he sees the threat our country faces and that he knows how to deal with them. He showed this when he was discussing the PATRIOT Act with Ron Paul. Senator Santorum stated that we needed the PATRIOT Act because the threats have changed and we are at war with radical Islam and need new tools to fight them. He also stated that we need to profile people at the airports or in any arena because the attacks that we have suffered have all come from Muslims meaning it would make sense to search the people who are attacking you. Senator Santorum showed that he still wants to be president and that he has not given up.

Weaknesses: Senator Santorum like many of the other candidates has to separate himself from the pack. While many of the ideas that the candidates hold are similar they need to point out how they are different from everyone else. Also Senator Santorum must sound authoritative. Many times during the debate he sounded as if he was unsure about what he was saying. He must communicate more confidently, with the authoritative tone of a future president.

Written by Jonathan Monroe

Our Hope

2011-11-10T12:34:00.004-05:00

This past Tuesday was Election Day in Virginia. I spent it with some of my favorite people, Generation Joshua students, working on a Student Action Team. After a long day of GOTV (Get-Out-The-Vote) efforts - frigid early morning sign-waving, knocking on thousands doors, making thousands of phone calls, and in my case, hundreds of u-turns driving the team van - we all gathered that night for what we so hoped would be a victory party. It was time to talk, pray, and wait while anxiously watching the election results come in.

Our race was breathtakingly close. Minutes melded into hours, precincts reported one by one, and our candidate balanced on the edge of a knife – down by 63 votes, up by 24 votes, and on, and on. Each update held the agonizing potential for victory or defeat, success or failure. I looked around the room, realizing that if it meant this much to me, how much more was at stake for those who had spent years working towards this night. Politics is not politically correct; there are real winners and losers.

Around 11 p.m. it was announced that the race was too close to call that night. With all but one precinct reporting, our candidate was down by about 120 votes. He still had a chance, and we all cheered and clapped, but it was a subdued crowd that slowly dispersed. Many put on a confident face, but there were more than one pair of misty eyes. As I followed my Gen J team out into the crisp, chilly night air, a lump formed in my throat and stayed with me the whole drive back to our hotel. We could very well lose.

Across Virginia, five other SAT teams were also watching their results come in – some winning, some losing. Naturally, my mind wandered to the obvious questions – did we not do enough? Did we do something wrong? Why, God, why? Please, God, please. In Generation Joshua, elections are about so much more than power and politics. It is why I so love the organization: we work for something higher, believe in something greater. Electing the right person to office could mean the saving of innocent lives, freedom for believers, and peace for families. Winning isn't just about team spirit, but truly making a difference.

But who really makes the difference? That morning I had read in Psalms 39, “Lord, who do I wait for? My hope is in You.” In looking up this passage again, I also found, “no king is saved by the multitude of an army; a mighty man is not delivered by great strength” (Psalm 33:16). The great mystery of serving an all-powerful God is just that: He is all-powerful! We demonstrate our faith in him by our actions, but our actions alone are nothing. “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect,” therefore, “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord's!” His ways are higher than our ways. It is ours to have faith, ours to act, ours to hope and trust.

Just before midnight I learned that the last precinct had come in, and our candidate was up by 86 votes. A mere 86! No doubt it took every door knock, every phone call, every volunteer to put us over the finish line. It took Generation Joshua organizing the Student Action Teams, it took HSLDA endorsing the candidates, it took the candidate and his family following God's call to run in the first place! And there's the key – God's call. The proof of God's work is not in winning or losing, but doing what he asks of us; what is good and right. Victory is in faithfulness, success in standing firm. In the simple, profound words of John Quincy Adams, “duty is ours, the results are God's.”

It took a full twelve hours for our results to sink in, but the tears of happiness and gratitude finally flowed (for me, anyways). Official results still hang in the balance, with a recount looming. But if the results stand, it will be the second time since the Civil War that Virginia is governed by a pro-life, pro-family, conservative majority in its executive leadership and both bodies of the Virginia Legislature. In a time when our country is in great need for Godly leadership, praise God that He is still answering the prayer of King David; “Let your mercy, oh Lord, be upon us, just as we hope in you!”

Grace Tate is a member of the Generation Joshua Leadership Corps.

New Generation Joshua Video

2011-10-31T10:47:00.002-04:00

This is an amazing video produced by GenJ members about why politics matters.

Check it out here:

No Man is an Island

2011-10-28T13:52:00.002-04:00

I loved this blog post today from the Heritage Foundation. It’s a good reminder that even though we’re conservatives and want to strengthen the individual, the family that God created and established is the building block of our society. ~ Will Estrada

October 27, 2011

No Man is an Island: Why Individualism Can’t Sustain Freedom
Is individualism adequate to sustain liberty and rein in government? This issue surfaced during the Republican primary debate last week in Las Vegas.
“This country has always put people in groups” and treated them accordingly, said Representative Ron Paul (R–TX). America needs to move away from this kind of “group mentality,” he says, toward a more individualistic perspective: “We need to see everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals.”
While not disagreeing with the fact that government should protect the rights of individuals, former Senator Rick Santorum (R–PA) took issue with Paul’s implication that “the country is founded on the individual.” Santorum argued, “The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family.”
It’s true that many rights belong to citizens as individuals. People don’t have the right to life and liberty, for example, only if they belong to some privileged group. Rather, God has endowed these rights to every single person as a unique individual with value and dignity.
But to leave the impression that rights-bearing individuals are islands unto themselves would be a mistake. That notion isn’t true to who we are as people, and it can actually lead to bigger government.
Everyone exists in some form of relationship to others. In fact, we become who we are—we develop our own unique habits and views—in the context of these relationships. We need to think of ourselves and others not merely as self-standing individuals but as persons in community.
And the most basic form of community is the family. Families and other community institutions are essential to human well-being. It’s in these local forms of association that we learn not only to respect rights but also to exercise responsibilities to others.
If we seek to restore limited government, it’s important not to overlook the fact that much of our flourishing lies in the kinds of relationships fostered in civil society.
We should protect the rights of every single citizen—every “individual,” if you will. To achieve this goal, though, we have to see and treat the “rights-bearer” for what he or she truly is: a social being, a member of various communities and forms of association. That means taking families and faith communities more seriously when it comes to policy decisions.
Tell us what you think by commenting on our blog >>

Community Offers a Helping Hand

More than one in four U.S. adults volunteers. Marriage and religious practice can have a positive effect on an individual’s likelihood of volunteering. Find out how marriage, family, and religion help maintain civil society at FamilyFacts.org.

Click here for the full chart

Reinventing the Family: Good Intentions Are Not Enough
Blog post by Collette Caprara

Veterans’ Groups Win Right to Religious Freedom
Blog post by Sarah Torre

THIS FRIDAY AND SATURDAY EVENING //
Seek the Welfare of the City at Cedarville University
If you live in Western Ohio, join Heritage and other local partners for a two-evening event that will equip you to respond effectively to needs in your community and beyond.

DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy organization. Heritage established the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society in 2004 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the role religion, family, and civil society play in sustaining freedom and the common good.

The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400 | heritage.org

________________________________________

2011-10-28T09:34:00.002-04:00

"Many parents may not know that sending your child to school is not a legal requirement in this country but it legally required for kids to be educated."

What to Look for in a Candidate

2011-10-12T14:04:00.003-04:00

I noticed a problem in the 2010 tea party election. There were people who were right on the issues, but they were bad candidates. What we need to win is candidates who are both good on the issues and good candidates.

So, what should we look for in candidates? What are the things that should guide our choices when we are picking an ideal candidate?

William Frank Buckley, Jr. gave us some guidance when he advocated the now famous “Buckley Rule.” The rule is “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.”

This rule is very helpful to me. But I need a little more detail. So I use the following criteria.

Issues:

Look for someone who you agree with. Think about what a person's position on an issue tells you about their beliefs. Racism is a bellwether issue for me. For example, if a candidate can somehow support racism it shows me that they have a fundamental flaw in how they value human life. Another bellwether for me is abortion. If a candidate does not understand the value of every human life, they how can I trust them to make decisions that will impact thousands, if not millions of lives.

Experience:

Can this person do the job? Do they have the necessary background in leadership, accomplishment, and handling the pressures of public life?

Character / Temperament:

Character is the mainstay for leadership. How can you tell if a candidate has good character? Look that those closest to them. Their relationship with their family and friends will give you an idea of their personal stability. The other question is will they function well in office? I know many wonderful people. They might be well qualified to do many things. But the question here is whether or not they are capable of dealing with the pressures of public life. Not everyone is.

Are they able to win:

Do they understand their audience and can they connect with them?
Do they have access to the resources necessary to win? (Are they able to appeal to high dollar donors?)
Can they inspire people to work to help them? (Does the base believe in them?)
Can they catch the wave of history? Some people cannot tell what is happening in history if it hits them in the head with a brick. Someone with clear vision can see what is happening, and ride that wave.

I hope this is helpful to you. What do you look for in a candidate?

-Jeremiah Lorrig

Justice Brought to Awlaki

2011-09-30T11:17:00.001-04:00

Justice Brought to Awlaki

This morning we received news that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone in Yemen.

Already there are those who are condemning this act of justice as a violation of Awlaki’s American civil rights. They argue that he should have been tried for treason and brought to justice that way.

I agree, if he had been arrested. In fact all traitors are, like any other citizen afforded the rights to trial by jury. That is a good thing.

So, if this is the case, how can I support the work of David Petraeus and the CIA?

Despite the fact that Awlaki was a United States citizen from New Mexico this death was not punishment for crime. This death was not because he was a traitor.

Awlaki was targeted by the CIA because he was an enemy combatant in a war. And congress authorized this conflict against the organization Al-Qaeda.

Whether you agree with the War on Terror, there are battles and casualties. This man should have (and likely would have) received a proper trial if he was arrested. He would have been charged for high treason. But he put himself into the war as an enemy combatant.

It is not a constitutional crisis. He put himself there, and died on a battlefield of this strange war.

All involved in this small victory ought to be commended. (Except, of course the Awlaki)

- Jeremiah Lorrig

Really?

2011-09-22T10:53:00.002-04:00

Read the article below, and then tell me that Christians don't need to be involved in politics to stop things like this from happening. This is an outright assault on freedom of religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/21/california-couple-fined-300-for-holding-home-bible-studies/?test=latestnews

FERPA, Now with another "E".

2011-09-22T10:12:00.001-04:00

Today we spoke with homeschool dad and Congressman Randy Hultgren about his new bill, FERPEA (Family Educational Records and Privacy Extension Act).

He is amending the current FERPA exceptions that protect the private records of students in public and private schools to also include homeschoolers. His bill is a good example of why it is important to elect good people to congress. Generation Joshua deployed a team of homeschool volunteers to work on Hultgren’s campaign this last November.

The congressman said about Generation Joshua, “It is a great educational opportunity for homeschoolers to work in congressional offices and on campaigns.”

He said that this bill is a great opening for Generation Joshua students to stay active. “This is a good opportunity to go and sit down with their member of congress and talk about this bill.”

He said all you need to do is “talk about how homeschooling has grown [since the original bill was passed in the 70s] and how this bill is practical help for families.”

We encourage you to step up and support this legislation. Call your member of congress and set up a meeting! They’ll love hearing from you.

-Jeremiah Lorrig

Reflections On Camp

2011-09-01T10:58:00.000-04:00

I am at my desk watching the rain come down as I reflect on the last several months at GenJ. Our summer is routinely marked by chaos and preparations as we get ready for, produce and the wrap up from our iGovern program. For those of you who don’t know these are Generation Joshua’s premier leadership training events. This last year we held two, they were in Colorado Springs and Washington DC and lasted for a week.

One of the things that strikes me this year is a great increase in attendance and God’s blessing upon these events. Don’t miss understand me, I don’t see God’s blessing as just numbers, though I do appreciate them. I see God’s blessing as protection for 120 people hiking down 8 miles of canyon, I see his blessing in providing safe passage into, through, and out of Washington DC, I see his blessing in watching students from very diverse Christian heritage come together and worship him in our nation’s capitol and in the Colorado Rockies. And most of all I see it in the conversations over this summer where I watch God softening a student’s heart and revealing how His truth impacts their life.

iGovern East and West were used by God for more than training over 250 people in leadership, election process and legislative techniques. It equipped them with the foundation necessary to engage the world around us as mature thinking Christians who know what they believe and why. To quote Morton Blackwell, one of our speakers, it is much easier to take someone with a solid foundation and equip them with political skills, than it is to take a skilled operative and give him a solid foundation.

For all of you who came Andrew Mullins (a member of our leadership corps) has hosted our Friday night slideshow for your viewing and downloading. Thanks so much for a wonderful summer and I’ll see you all again next year!

West: http://www.andrewwmullins.com/?page_id=1932

East: http://www.andrewwmullins.com/?page_id=1771

In Christ,

Joel Grewe

iGovern Camp Director

Compromises and Coalitions

2011-08-03T14:56:00.002-04:00

There has been a lot of talk following the passage of the “debt deal” in Washington on Tuesday. Some on the left are frothing angrily at how the Democrat leaders caved to the Republicans demand for no revenue increases (code for tax-hikes), while others on the right are rather bummed that the debt ceiling was raised at all.

One thing that I have seen arise from this crisis is a criticism of the Republican leaders for bowing to TEA party demands in the face of a national crisis. One op-ed described the Republican Party as a two-party coalition more than a unified party. In a coalition government, like the one currently operating in England, no party has a solid majority by itself. Two parties will then form a coalition and decide to govern together. The similarity that we see in Washington is that the Republican party is a bit divided between its TEA party members, about 100 or more members of Congress, and the rest of the party. These TEA party members are very vocal and must be consulted and courted for Boehner to do anything in Congress.

This situation is nothing new for the Republican Party. In the middle of the 20^th century the Republican Party established its foundation on the three pillars of Conservatism: Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, and Defense Conservatism. These three groups of conservatives banded together to form a coalition. Reagan was a master at building and solidifying this coalition.

In our current political climate the loudest member of this coalition is the fiscal conservatives championed by the TEA party and fiscal hawks in congress. It doesn’t show weakness on Boehner’s part or for the Republican Party in general, if they have to consider the fiscal members of their coalition. Rather this pressure from the TEA party is good for the Republican Party since it will serve as a good balancing force to keep the party true to its roots.

Michael Zeller

Culture Watch: Effectively Helping the Poor While Controlling Government Spending

2011-07-29T09:38:00.006-04:00

“If you read our recent dueling blog posts, then you know that how the Federal Government handles compassion for the disadvantaged is a hot topic. Check out this email from Heritage Foundation that I think really hits the nail on the head regarding the Federal Government’s role in helping the poor. Also check out this link: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/05/Does-Advocating-Limited-Government-Mean-Abandoning-the-Poor

Will Estrada

July 28, 2011

Effectively Helping the Poor While Controlling Government Spending

As Congress turns itself in knots this week trying to resolve the looming debt crisis, some religious leaders are demanding that the President and congressional leaders exclude anti-poverty spending from budget talks. Leaders from 12 Christian organizations met with President Obama last Wednesday to discuss the Circle of Protection, an ecumenical document that insists federal welfare programs be left out of negotiations to get government spending under control.

The Circle of Protection declares that “budgets are moral documents” and calls policymakers to “resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people.” However, such statements are overly simplistic and miss the point of reforms that can truly help the poor.

As Heritage’s Ryan Messmore writes, “The budget is indeed a moral document, but it is also a morally complex document. Protecting ineffective programs doesn’t protect the poor, and reducing the debate to simplistic catchphrases doesn’t foster informed public discussion.”

The Circle of Protection claims to defend poor Americans. But insisting that government funding continue for policies that have failed to reduce poverty rates is fails to help those truly in need. The belief that poverty is merely a problem of material need that will be solved by increased funds has seriously distracted policymakers from eliminating wasteful, ineffective programs and allocating resources to those truly experiencing destitution.

As Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield point out in a new report on the actual living conditions of the poor in the U.S., “exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.”

So far, this week’s debt talks seem to continue the status quo of inefficient spending on government assistance. Neither the Gang of Six’s plan nor the Boehner Plan has adequately addressed the unsustainable spending on federal welfare programs.

Policymakers should begin to accurately assess the root causes of poverty and implement policies that promote self-sufficiency. Truly helping the poor will require anti-poverty policy to reflect the importance of marriage and work - not indiscriminately demand a hedge of protection around ineffective and inefficient government welfare programs.

Read more about how policymakers can get government spending under control while truly helping the poor >>

Stop giving the alcoholic the bottle – Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-25T14:58:00.000-04:00

Last week, my good friend and colleague, Glenn Bertsch, wrote that as Conservative Christians, we should be in favor of raising the debt ceiling. His main reason for this was that we had a moral obligation to keep funding entitlement programs like Social Security and Welfare.

I respectfully disagree. I do not think we have a moral obligation to fund these programs. Don’t raise the debt ceiling. I think it’s time to take the easy money away from the Federal Government – which spends money faster than drunken sailors on shore leave – and put our nation back on the road to prosperity. Here’s why.

Proverbs 22:7 says that the “borrower is the slave to the lender.” And ain’t that the truth! We owe trillions of dollars to China, a corrupt, evil, despotic regime. Credit rating agencies are threatening to take away our AAA rating, which will mean that we will have to pay even more money in interest. There is serious concern that we couldn’t even fight a war in the next ten years because of our nation’s money woes. And just as scripture teachers, our nation is a slave because we borrow. The 14.3 trillion dollars that we are in debt is weighing down our nation. Kids not yet born will be saddled with their parents’ and grandparents’ debt. And why is our nation in debt?

It’s not because of military spending. After all, protecting the nation is one of the few things that the Federal Government IS authorized to do under the Constitution! No, we’re in debt mainly because of entitlement programs.

Social Security, the Federal Government’s promise to give elderly people a free retirement, was created in 1935 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his fellow leftist Democrats in Congress. What business did the Federal Government have in taking care of the elderly? And furthermore, what business does the Federal Government have in taking care of the poor, the sick, the weak?

Glenn thinks that the Federal Government should take care of these people because it was promised back in 1935. I disagree. The Federal Government is taking my hard earned money – and borrowing trillions more – so that people don’t suffer. But don’t people see what is happening? Our nation is becoming a slave. Our nation is on its way to bankruptcy. Our nation is facing an inability to field a strong military to protect us. Because of our Federal Government’s misguided attempts to play god and protect people from poverty and illness, our entire nation is facing destruction and ruin.

It’s time to say enough is enough. It’s time to say no more raising the debt ceiling. It’s time to tell seniors on Social Security that we’ll pay what we can, but the money isn’t there right now. It’s time to say that God is our hope, not the Federal Government. It’s time to say that the United States of America will no longer be a slave. It’s time to stop borrowing, pay what we can, and just cut the size of the government.

Glenn is right. This is a moral issue. But the moral issue is that the Federal Government should NEVER have promised to play god back in 1935. The Federal Government has to be honest and admit that it was wrong, and that it cannot keep taking money from hard working people through taxes and redistributing it (once upon a time, we called that “socialism and “communism.”) The Federal Government has to live within its means.

But there’s one more thing to this equation. The Church – individual Christians around the nation – need to stand up and look out for the poor, the sick, and the elderly. Jesus did say in Matthew 26:11 that “you will always have the poor with you,” but He also commanded us as Christians (He DIDN’T give this command to government!) “to love our neighbors as ourselves.”

So, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Stop the entitlement programs. But ordinary American men women and children must reach out to our fellow citizens in Christian love and charity and provide the care and gospel message to the hurting that the Federal Government will never be able to provide.

By Will Estrada

A Message from Heritage's President

2011-07-21T15:35:00.002-04:00

This is a great post on one of the greatest issues of our day. -Will"

"The Fight We're In"

Morning Bell: The Fight We’re In

Ed Feulner

July 21, 2011 at 9:39 am

Fellow conservatives,

We find ourselves in the midst of an important battle, the outcome of which will be determined by decisions to be made in the immediate days ahead. We must win this fight. The debate over raising the debt limit seems complicated, but it is really very simple. Look beyond the myriad details of the awkward compromises, and you see an epic struggle between two opposing camps.

On one side are those who have come to realize it would be madness to let the political class borrow more without imposing a serious check on government spending. They have produced budgets and now an actual legislative plan to get things under control.

On the other, you find those who consider more spending, taxing, and borrowing a royal prerogative. They have produced nothing but rhetoric and empty promises and have pushed this debate to the brink.

It is a fair fight—or would be, if those trying to bring sanity to the nation’s fiscal picture were not held back by confused allies. These allies say they still want to cut spending, but (temporarily, we hope) have put love of political maneuvering ahead of the principles that brought them to Washington in the first place.

It would also help if the nation’s media clearly separated facts from opinion.

Let’s be clear. As of this moment, only one plan in Congress attempts transformative change that puts America on the path to getting spending under control before raising the debt limit. That is the Cut, Cap and Balance Act passed by the House of Representatives on Monday night. It isn’t perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

The act cuts federal spending immediately, caps it by statute going forward, and requires passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would then be sent to the states for ratification.

If you haven’t heard about it, you’re not alone. The nation’s media all but ignored this historic vote or dismissed the Cut, Cap and Balance Act as an empty gesture. CBS’s Bob Schieffer once again spoke for the establishment when he called it “a total waste of time…part of this little Kabuki dance that we go through.”

This media establishment took its cue from President Obama, who showered his trademark disdain on the House vote, not only threatening a veto but also announcing a so-called breakthrough in negotiations just hours before the House voted. In doing so, Mr. Obama refused to engage the arguments of Cut, Cap and Balance and signaled his fear of this serious proposal.

Unfortunately, it was not just the media and President Obama who worked against Cut, Cap and Balance. By letting themselves be talked into agreeing to a compromise the very day of the House vote, a group of Senators called the “Gang of Six” played into the hands of those who wanted to kill Cut, Cap and Balance.

The same can be said of the so-called McConnell–Reid Plan, a convoluted mousetrap of a compromise that would just authorize trillions more in borrowing with an empty promise that—maybe—Congress will cut spending one day.

There is no more time left for political gamesmanship by the tax, spend, and borrow crowd. The Senate has an obligation to debate Cut, Cap and Balance, and the American people need to be given time to consider it. We agree with Senator Ron Johnson (R–WI), who told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough this week, “I know Washington is broken. I see business as usual here. But now we’re witnessing business as usual on steroids, and it’s bankrupting this nation.”

Senator Johnson’s solution, which seems to us the only way forward, was the following:

If we’re really going to prevent America from going bankrupt, it’s a two-step process. The first thing we have to do is instill that fiscal discipline: the hard spending caps. And I think honestly, in the end we need a Constitutional amendment to limit the size of government. Anything else—all these other negotiations, secret little things, commissions—that’s business as usual, and again, that has been bankrupting America. We’ve got to step back from that. We’ve got to instill fiscal discipline. That’s what Cut, Cap and Balance does.

The men and women thinking of compromising at this point are not bad or unpatriotic; they simply have lost their way. Those of us who still watch old movies can compare the present situation to the 1957 classic “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”

In the film, an upright British colonel who had become a prisoner of war forgets temporarily the principles he was sworn to uphold and—to show his Japanese captors the professionalism of British soldiers—puts his men to work building the best bridge possible.

In the end, he recovers his sanity and realizes he is only helping the Japanese war effort, and he helps destroy the bridge.

It isn’t too late for us yet. Government spending is currently at 24.3 percent of GDP, and U.S. debt held by the public stands at 69.1 percent of GDP. This bridge needs to be stopped.

Congress should not raise the debt limit without getting spending under control. Debt limit legislation should put America on the path to driving down federal spending and borrowing, while preserving the ability to protect America without raising taxes.

Edwin J. Feulner

President, The Heritage Foundation

Why the Debt Ceiling Should be Increased – With Conditions.

2011-07-19T13:32:00.001-04:00

Right now, most liberals support raising the debt ceiling along with raising taxes, moderates and common sense conservatives say to raise the debt ceiling but to require spending cuts, and Tea Partiers say to not raise the debt ceiling.

Although I understand the Tea Party position, I disagree with it. As a Christian, I have a moral issue with not giving what we have promised. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of the entitlement programs that we have now, but we cannot just end them right now. We must phase those out. We have promised people that they will be given a certain amount, and it would be unjust to stop providing what was promised with no advance notice.

I fall in with the moderate and common sense conservative approach. We need to raise the debt ceiling now. The only results of not doing this are immoral, in my opinion.

Now, before I get into why we need to raise it, I want to explain exactly what the debt ceiling is. The debt ceiling is NOT the equivalent of a credit limit. A credit limit is imposed on you by a credit company. The debt ceiling is a self-imposed limit on what you will borrow. Here is an example: You have a credit card with, let’s say, a $25,000 credit limit. So, you cannot be in debt more than $25,000 on that card. The debt ceiling is equivalent to saying you won’t borrow more than $10,000. You can borrow more, but you won’t let yourself.

Congress has said that they won’t let themselves borrow more than a certain amount. Now, they are realizing that in order to pay their expenses, they need to borrow more than they wanted. So, they are planning on raising the maximum amount that they will let themselves borrow.

Now that we know what the debt ceiling is, why should we raise it? We have promised a certain amount of outlays; Social Security, welfare, defense, etc. Whether you think they are good or not, you cannot just stop giving them the money you promised with no advance warning.

First, Social Security. We cannot cut it for seniors. I favor a gradual repeal that allows people to stop paying into it, and not receive the benefits, but to keep giving the benefits to those who have paid into the program. They have paid into the program, and are relying on the funds they were promised. It is immoral, unjust, and frankly, not Christ-like to cut those funds.

Second, welfare. I am not a supporter of the current welfare system. It needs to be majorly reformed. However, we CANNOT cut that funding right away. The government has promised these funds to people. It is unjust to take it away, without giving them enough time to get other funding in place. I support phasing out the welfare programs, but you must phase them out. You can say that welfare will be ending on a certain date, but that should be at least 3-6 months down the road. That way, people can get other funding in place before the welfare checks stop.

Yes, we need to get spending under control. However, we cannot simply cut trillions today. We must cut spending, but it has to be through sunset clauses so it ends down the road, with enough time for people and organizations to find other sources of funding.

So, we need to raise the debt ceiling now, but any attempt to do so must be accompanied with spending cuts that take place down the road 3-6 months. And then continue to cut spending over time until we get to the point where we can have a balanced budget. But that will take time unless we want to raise taxes; which, I hope, we can all agree is a bad idea.

By Glenn Bertsch

Illegal Immigrants! Undocumented Workers! And Americans! Oh My!

2011-06-29T13:51:00.003-04:00

When we hear about these people in conservative circles we often hear them derided as people who steal American jobs and raise the crime rate in our cities. However, as much as we may talk about enforcing immigration law there is another side to this story. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jose Vargas has started a campaign to address the issue, and start a conversation to define what makes an American. Is it papers? Birth certificates? Or is it something deeper.

Let us know what you think in the comments!

Michael Z.

Ministry > Politics

2011-06-16T17:04:00.001-04:00

Last week, I had the unique opportunity to volunteer for Generation Joshua's iGovern Camp East. It was one on the most amazing weeks of my life. I have been involved in Gen J since 2004, and it is, without a doubt, the best organization I have ever interacted with when it comes to training high schoolers about applying Christianity to the civic arena.

Joel Grewe, the camp director, told me that when it comes to Christians in government, he didn't want political operators, he wanted Biblical leaders. So the entire camp was focused first and foremost around Christ, and the theme of politics was used as a tool to glorify God. I've heard stories about iGovern West in 2009, where Gen J chose to completely shut down the political side of the camp in order to deal with spiritual issues amongst campers. Throughout my experience with iGovern this week, I can understand why. Chapel was the highlight of the day, and the prayer meetings that went on at night were amazing.

I had the opportunity to represent the N.Y. Times as a lobbyist and publish a daily paper for the camp. Interacting with the kids was a blast, as they tried to figure out what to say and what not to say to the press. I was their one-week crash course in media relations- and I saw the students improve drastically in their ability to handle the press over a period of mere days. I'm sure that the students learned just as much when it came to their legislative abilities, lobbying and campaigning, even though I didn't get to work with them as much.

But the real important stuff happened outside the Congressional simulation. I walked over to chapel one day after getting off work. I got there just in time to see the kids leaving slowly and silently. The stories I heard later that night during the counselor meeting was amazing- I heard of kids opening up and sharing struggles they'd been having with each other, encouraging each other and cultivating relationships.

There's all sorts of kids involved in Gen J. There's the normal ones, who show up, participate and have a blast. There's the crazy ones. And there's the hurting ones, the ones who come to a fast-paced, high stress camp to "relax" because of their family situations back home. There's kids who are dealing with loneliness, depression and a host of other issues. There's kids who meet their best friends at camp, and keep in touch with them online through Gen J's forums.

I know. I've been there. I've dealt with a number of the issues these kids are talking about- the broken family situation, the loneliness, the over-the-top personality I used as a front. And I know that had it not been for Gen J, and the relationships and mentoring formed there, I would not be where I am today.

As a civic involvement program, Generation Joshua is superb. But from a kid that will probably never go into politics or government, let me say that as a ministry, Generation Joshua blows everyone else away.

By Nick Barden

The Death of Osama

2011-05-02T09:22:00.002-04:00

As you are probably all aware Osama Bin Laden is dead. Reactions around the United States have ranged from disbelief to outright celebration to condemnation of the rejoicing. As I was reflecting on these events this morning (and watching my facebook feed filled with reactions across the spectrum) I had to consider what a Biblical reaction should be. Personally I have a sense of satisfaction and justice that he is gone. His brutal and wanton violence and murder earned him a swift death many times over. But I also am tempted to rejoice in his death, having worked in Washington D.C. shortly after the 9/11 attack for 4 months I lived with daily reminders of his evil. I was drawn to Romans 13 in an attempt to put my emotions in place regarding this.

Romans 13 ¹ Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ⁴ For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

I found this an excellent view of the news. It is Gods plan that the rulers of nations (and their instruments) be his instrument to mete out justice to those who do wrong. And at about 1:00 A.M. local time on May 2 those Navy Seals were God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

- Mr. G

Why Elections Matter

2011-04-14T10:09:00.004-04:00

Dear Liberty's Call readers
I wanted all of you to see this great article by our friends at FRC. I believe that elections are extremely important, and I think this article says it better than I ever could.
Stay Strong and Courageous
Will Estrada

April 13, 2011

In 2009, Barack Obama appointed then-Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to
be Secretary of Health and Human Services [1]. This was a troubling
pick for conservatives, given her support for abortion on demand and
support from abortion giant Planned Parenthood. As an advocate for
federal funding of abortion, abortafacient drugs and embryonic stem
cell research, among other things, Sec. Sebelius has justified these
concerns.

Yet there is a significant bright side to Sec. Sebelius' departure
from Topeka: Former Senator Sam Brownback, a champion for life, is
now Governor of Kansas. And what a difference that has made.

Yesterday, Gov. Brownback signed legislation [2] that "strictly limits
abortions after 22 weeks based on the fact that fetuses can feel pain
beginning after the 21st week of pregnancy" and another measure, "the
Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights Act," which "requires
minors who seek abortions to obtain consent from both parents and
places certain prohibitions on late-term and partial birth abortions."

Kathleen Sebelius would have fought these bills from their
introduction forward. Sam Brownback not only signed but celebrated
them.

To those who say that Christians should withdraw from political
engagement and concentrate on private acts of charity or work solely
with church or ministry groups, consider Sam Brownback and his allies
in the Kansas Legislature. Were these bills the final word in the
battle for life? No. But they are part of a larger legislative
mosaic that is building, gradually but steadily, a culture where the
personhood of the unborn child increasingly is being recognized in law
and in the American conscience. For the children whose lives will
be saved through these measures, they are nothing less than critical.

Does political engagement bring complete resolution of every
problem? No. But political action can make a decisive, if
incremental, difference in a host of areas --- most importantly those
involving the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage, and the
centrality of religious liberty to American public life.

Elections matter. Just ask Sam Brownback.

by Rob Schwarzwalder

Originally posted at

http://www.frcblog.com/2011/04/why-elections-matter/

GOP 2012 in a nutshell.

2011-04-06T10:31:00.005-04:00

Last time I wrote about the 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls I expected the field to shrink as time went on. I am shocked to inform you that although three have dropped off (Pence, Thune, and DeMint), the field has widened not shrunk. They are in no particular order:

Palin-Fmr VP candidate, TV star, Fmr AK Gov, and momma grizzly.
Romney-Businessman, savior of the Olympics, Fmr MA Gov, and Mormon.
Huckabee-Front runner is the polls, Fmr AR Gov, Fmr pastor, and TV host.
Gingrich-Leader of the Contract with America, Fmr Speaker of the House political speaker, and author.
Barbour-MS Gov, Fmr RNC head, and southern insider.
Pawlenty-Fmr MN Gov, lawyer, and the guy I was rooting for to be McCain’s VP choice.
Santorum-Fmr PA Sen, pro-life leader, and homeschool dad.
Daniels-IN Gov, businessman, and wants a truce on the social issues.
Cain-Businessman, Tea Party speaker, speech at CPAC flopped, but speech at Conservative Principles Conference was great.
Roemer-WHO?!? That’s what I said. Fmr. LA Gov.
Paul (Ron)-Libertarian, TX Rep, Medical Dr, and Audit the Fed man.
Johnson-Creepy Libertarian, businessman, Fmr NM Gov, and only one to mahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifke this list who doesn’t even claim to be pro-life.
Bachmann-MN Rep, Fmr Tax Attorney, foster mom, and Tea Party leader.
Huntsman-Fmr UT Gov, Fmr Ambassador to China and Singapore, and musician. (Also a Mormon but doesn’t seem to impact his political profile as much as Romney).
Moore-Judge, his claim to fame is that he was fired over the 10 Commandments.
Trump-TV Star, professional celebrity, businessman, and real-estate mogul.

Posted by Jeremiah Lorrig, originally published at Looking for Overland.

One Book, Seven Innocent People

2011-04-04T16:55:00.001-04:00

Who is To Blame?

On the twentieth of March Reverend Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida finally acted on his threats from last September and burned a single Koran. Few people seemed to notice, and Rev. Jones did not receive the media attention that he had received when he was originally holding the 9-11-10 Koran burning day at his church.
Someone in Afghanistan noticed, though, and two weeks later, over this last weekend a riot broke out in the Afghanistan city of Mazar-e-Sharif, as well as in the Kandahar region. The riot in Mazar-e-Sharif ended with the brutal deaths of seven UN workers. The rioters claimed to be responding to the burning of the Koran, which Islamic teachings hold as holy.
The outcry against Jones has resumed with General Petraeus, the commander of the forces in Afghanistan, leading the way condemning Rev. Jones. Who is to blame though? Was the violence in Mazar-e-Sharif Rev. Jones’ fault? Let’s use an analogy. If someone calls you a bad name and you punch them, you will probably still expect to be punished but you feel justified in your actions. Using this comparison, Jones is not responsible for the attacks, but his actions were irresponsible and unwise.
One does have to wonder though about the time that elapsed between the actual burning of the Koran on March 20, and the riots of the previous weekend. It seems likely that these riots were planned ahead of time and were not simply the result of people getting angry at America for an American pastor burning a Koran. We know that people can be whipped into frenzy and do outrageous things when manipulated by a small number of radicals, and this is what appears to have happened this past weekend. I hope that the authorities in Afghanistan will clamp down on the true hateful speech of the provocateurs in Mazar-e-Sharif.
In conclusion, while the actions of Rev. Jones were poorly chosen, I wouldn’t blame him for the deaths in Afghanistan, but instead would blame those who incited the crowds, and directed them toward the UN outpost.

Read the story from the Wall Street Journal here: (Warning: the article contains some violent content) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576241110591067484.html

By Michael Zeller

Who is at Fault for a Government Shutdown?

2011-04-01T16:53:00.000-04:00

With House Majority Leader Eric Cantor basically ruling out another short-term funding resolution, a government shutdown is looking inevitable. The question everyone is asking is “whose at fault?”

In my humble opinion, the Harry Reid controlled Senate is at fault. The House passed a budget in February, which the Senate has failed to pass. However, not only has the Senate failed to pass the House bill, the Senate has failed to pass any budget bill. Through this whole fiasco, the Republican controlled House is the only body which has taken the lead on the budget. The way the budget is supposed to work, is the House will pass a budget, then the Senate will consider it, and either pass it or they will amend it and pass a variation of the budget, and then the two Houses work out a bill that will pass. However, there has been no action, let alone leadership on this issue by either the President or the Senate.

The best plan of action would be for the Senate to pass its own budget, and allow the two Houses to come together in a conference committee to work out the differences. As it is, the Senate leadership and the President have been very cryptic about what they want in a long-term funding bill, and the House is unable to determine what the President and Senate want in a budget because of the lack of leadership. The House can continue to pass stopgap funding bills until pigs fly, but nothing will be done until the Senate steps up to the plate and works with the House to get a funding bill passed.

If no budget is passed, the government will not be able to pay its bills, and all but the essential parts of the government will close.

The Senate Leadership is going to try to blame any shutdown on the House, but in reality, they have no one to blame but themselves. We should call on the Senate to take action to keep the government open and allow the process to work.

Blenn Gertsch

Turning up a Prayer

2011-03-24T10:54:00.005-04:00

Let me start by saying that I think this is an amazing song and an amazing video. The song has a very real, visceral, emotional edge, that is only heightened by the video. The interspersed cuts of fans adds an amazing human element, reinforces to the message the song is trying to get across, and enhances the overall experience of listening to the song.
I'll be the first to admit, I am not particularly discerning with the music I listen to. If I like how it sounds, and it doesn't come right out and offend me, I will probably listen to it. Judging from the number of christian teens that I see posting Lady Gaga lyrics in their Facebook statuses, I would venture to say that I am not the only one.
I don't attribute this to poor moral standards, ignoring Gods call for us to surround ourselves only with "whatever is pure" or anything sinful. Most people, Christian and non-christian, simply listen to the music they like, and rarely concern themselves with the message behind it. This is made easier and easier by the fact that nowadays you can write a song about hanging out in a club with all of your money, set it to dub step, and have ten million people buy it on iTunes. I'll reserve any critical remarks about this "phenomenon" for a later date, but it is pretty safe to say that when a large percentage of popular music ceases to mean much of anything, most people will probably tune out the music that does.
This brings me back full circle to "Closer to the Edge" by Thirty Seconds to Mars. As stated earlier, I love this song. And while I don't intend to really get to deep into the message of the song, it is basically a "be yourself, anything goes, lose yourself in the song, and for the love of God buy my album" ballad, I was struck by what the young lady at the end had to say. "Some people believe in God, I believe in music. Some people pray, I turn up the radio."
As Christians, I do not believe that we shouldn't listen to songs like this. As stated earlier, I think it is a very good song, and while the message is not very uplifting, I don't think it is particularly subversive. The issue arises when we no longer have the discernment to differentiate between the truth and the lies. What we do does matter, turning up the radio is not a prayer, and music is not a substitute for God.
I would challenge you to listen to some of your favorite secular songs, and focus on the lyrics. What do they mean? What is the artist trying to communicate? Why are they trying to communicate it? Are you strong enough in your faith to appreciate quality artistry and musicianship while recognizing that what the artist has to say is not consistent with Biblical truth?

Lucas J. Mason

On Libya Part 2

2011-03-24T10:05:00.001-04:00

On President Obama

Despite my support for the military action in Libya, I am saddened by how Obama has acted. Instead of taking leadership, making the case to the American people, and doing what needs to be done because it is right, Obama waited to hear what the UN said and then joined the bandwagon. Even if it is the right bandwagon that is not the way a President should act.

Leadership is seeing the right thing and doing it. A great example of leadership is Winston Churchill. Churchill was the leading voice in the free world calling for action against Hitler. He saw what was right and did everything in his power to do it. He didn’t wait for the British people to agree; he didn’t wait for the international community to tell him what to do; he did what he could because it was right.

A principled leader will take a stand and people will follow. Unfortunately, Obama did something unprecedented by surrendering America’s position of leadership among free people. We stood back and waited for the UN to tell us what to do. That is not what I want to see in a president. I want a leader.

Jeremiah Lorrig