THE WAY THEY HAVE THE CHURCH LOCKED DOWN

The left hates the church. This is fact and not fiction. You can count on them to use the coronavirus in an attempt to damage Christianity. Their ultimate goal is to sell preachers on a future church with a vastly decreased influence on the nation.

They proved both their hatred and their future plans by the way they closed the churches during this pandemic. They should have found a way to keep churches open, and they could have done so, easily: they found a way to keep “necessary businesses” like Planned Parenthood open.

But by not even trying to find a way, they made a very dangerous statement. The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

It is illegal to prevent worship. If there was any way possible to allow churches to remain open safely, they were duty bound to find it.

If it is in the Constitution that you can’t create a law which prevents American citizens from meeting for worship in churches, why did they do it? California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) will tell you that it is necessary to close churches for the safety of the public. That is a bald-faced lie. California found a way to keep Walmart, Costco, and liquor stores open, as well as the Planned Parenthood death mills.

But when it came to churches, they didn’t even try. They didn’t even bother to consult pastors about what could be done. California is the epicenter of technology, and they couldn’t find a solution for safe worship? Why would they do this? Could it be they couldn’t find a way to keep churches open for the same reason a burglar can’t find a policeman?

The preexisting hatred for the church emboldened them to ignore their Constitutional priority to allow freedom of religion. This hatred is so blatant and open that Governor Northam of Virginia hideously overruled freedom of religion by passing a law that forces churches to allow men to use the ladies room.

Ever notice how the Left uses the phrase “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion”? They do that on purpose. They use it to justify their bans on churches. They say, “You can worship God in nature, in your car, or in your house.” But “freedom of religion” means something else, entirely. Freedom of religion refers to houses of worship, doctrines, creeds and traditions.

Freedom of religion means you cannot write a law that overrules a religious conviction, but that is precisely what Northam did. He is saying, in essence, “I don’t care what your Bible says, I order you to violate your faith.” Using that logic, they could force Rabbis to eat ham sandwiches…

So why did they do all these things? This, my friend, was merely a dress rehearsal. They flexed their muscles to prove they could close down every church and keep them closed for as long as they wanted. If you think they won’t do it again—and next time, do it with far less justification—you are naïve.

The purpose of the test was to see how America would react. Look carefully at these verses:

Acts 12:1-3, “Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter, also.” Are you seeing a pattern here?

When Herod saw how murdering Christian leaders pleased the anti-Christian crowd, it emboldened him to arrest Peter. Bingo! That is what California and other States are doing. Testing to see how it plays with their base when they persecute the church.

Here is the tragic fact we must face. Millions were okay with the church shutdown because they hate President Trump and they see the church as his ally.

Long after the virus is no longer a viable threat, every State under Democrat rule will keep churches closed as long as possible. And even after they allow us to open, there will be permanent irrational limitations placed on us. Here in Reno, they opened the marijuana dispensaries today, but churches are still forced to remain closed indefinitely. Go figure.

I hate the term ‘wakeup call’ because it is vastly over-used. But, this really is a wakeup call. Just as Paul indicted the Philippian politicos for their gross violation of Roman law in Acts 16, we must take legal action against all the governors who illegally violated the Constitution, and who oppressed the church.

If we fail to come together in unity and act against this tyranny, we will be bitterly failing our children and future generations.

It’s a hard truth, but when it comes to defending freedom of religion, at this point, we can only look to God and ourselves. But if God be for us, who can be against us?

FCC backs off newsroom survey plan.

FCC backs off newsroom survey plan

Published February 21, 2014

FoxNews.com

The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday that it was putting on hold a controversial study of American newsrooms, after complaints from Republican lawmakers and media groups that the project was too intrusive.

FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed with critics that some of the study’s proposed questions for reporters and news directors “overstepped the bounds of what is required.”

The agency announced that a proposed pilot study in South Carolina will now be shelved, at least until a “new study design” is finalized. But the agency made clear that this and any future studies will not involve interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.”

Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the staunchest critics of the proposal, heralded the decision Friday as an acknowledgement that government-backed researchers would not be dispatched into newsrooms, as feared.

“This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong,” he said in a statement. “The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices. This is an important victory for the First Amendment.”

He added: “And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms.”

The Radio and Television News Directors Association took a more cautious view of the announcement.

“RTDNA views this as an important admission by the FCC that questions regarding editorial policies and practices are off-limits to the government,” Director Mike Cavender said in a statement. “We are eager to see the revised study to insure there aren’t topics or questions that could be construed as a ‘back door’ attempt to gather the same type of information.”

Amid the controversy, Wheeler had already told lawmakers the commission had “no intention” of regulating reporters’ speech. He also directed that the controversial questions be removed from the survey entirely.

The initial proposal for the study called for looking into issues like “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” The proposed questions for the interviews with members of the media raised alarm bells, including questions about “news philosophy” and how much community input goes into story selection and whether reporters ever had “a story with critical information” rejected by management.

Gilson said Friday that, “Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters.”

However, she added: “Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false. The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal.”

The contract for the study had gone to Maryland-based firm Social Solutions International, whose background largely focuses on public health and not media. Republican lawmakers first complained about the potential course of the study in December. Pai raised additional concerns in a Wall Street Journal column earlier this month.

New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections.

firsrt amendment copy

New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections

BY BYRON YORK | FEBRUARY 20, 2014 AT 5:48 PM

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” Those “needs” will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future. It’s hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.

The initiative, known around the agency as “the CIN Study” (pronounced “sin”), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. “This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,” says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). “I’ve never had any input into the process,” adds Pai, who brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

 

Advocates promote the project with Obama-esque rhetoric. “This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens,” said FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn in 2012. Clyburn, daughter of powerful House Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, was appointed to the FCC by President Obama and served as acting chair for part of last year. The FCC, Clyburn said, “must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to meeting the needs of those in varied and vibrant communities of our nation — be they native born, immigrant, disabled, non-English speaking, low-income, or other.” (The FCC decided to test the program with a trial run in Ms. Clyburn’s home state, South Carolina.)

The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is “critical” for citizens to have. The scholars decided that “critical information” is information that people need to “live safe and healthy lives” and to “have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities,” among other things.

The study identified eight “critical needs”: information about emergencies and risks; health and welfare; education; transportation; economic opportunities; the environment; civic information; and political information.

It’s not difficult to see those topics quickly becoming vehicles for political intimidation. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine that they wouldn’t. For example, might the FCC standards that journalists must meet on the environment look something like the Obama administration’s environmental agenda? Might standards on economic opportunity resemble the president’s inequality agenda? The same could hold true for the categories of health and welfare and “civic information” — and pretty much everything else.

“An enterprising regulator could run wild with a lot of these topics,” says Pai. “The implicit message to the newsroom is they need to start covering these eight categories in a certain way or otherwise the FCC will go after them.”

The FCC awarded a contract for the study to a Maryland-based company called Social Solutions International. In April 2013, Social Solutions presented a proposal outlining a process by which contractors hired by the FCC would interview news editors, reporters, executives and other journalists.

“The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected,” theSocial Solutions report said, adding that news organizations would be evaluated for “station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

There are a lot of scary words for journalists in that paragraph. And not just for broadcasters; the FCC also proposes to regulate newspapers, which it has no authority to do. (Its mission statement says the FCC “regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable…”)

Questioning about the CIN Study began last December, when the four top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the FCC to justify the project. “The Commission has no business probing the news media’s editorial judgment and expertise,” the GOP lawmakers wrote, “nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of ‘critical information.'”

If the FCC goes forward, it’s not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards. Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the administration’s journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights.

IRS asked pro-life group about ‘the content of their prayers’

Congressman: IRS asked pro-life group about ‘the content of their prayers’

May 17, 2013 | 2:27 pm 

During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., grilled outgoing IRS commissioner Steven Miller about the IRS targeting a pro-life group in Iowa.

“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’” Schock declared.

“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501 c3 applicant?” asked Schock. “The content of one’s prayers?”

“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller replied.

After Schock pressed him further, Miller explained that although he couldn’t comment on the specific case, it would “surprise him” if that question was asked.

The report stems from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm for religious liberty.

 

From their report:

Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.