CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Prostitutes In The Pulpit


RELIGION / SOME "CONSERVATIVE" CHURCH MINISTERS WORSHIP MONEY, POLITICS AND POWER, RATHER THAN THE BIBLE AND GOD



Chuck Baldwin Live



Smiley Flag WaverMost conservative Christian ministers would never dare challenge President George W. Bush or hardly any other prominent Republican, for that matter. Regardless of how unconstitutional or even unbiblical his policies and decisions might be, they refuse to address them. They either keep quiet or publicly support these fallacious decisions. What can such conduct be if it is not a deliberate attempt to grovel before power, to prostitute our message for the pleasure of men?



Prostitutes In The Pulpit


~ By Chuck Baldwin
January 4, 2007


The Ted Haggard debacle is certainly a blight upon the cause of Christ. Unfortunately, it was not the first such embarrassment the Body of Christ has been forced to endure. Neither will it be the last. When it comes to sexual improprieties, there is no shortage of human frailty.

However, discernment and discretion teach us that not all sins are created equal. For example, one would be foolish indeed to compare King David to the sons of Eli. The character assassins in the media (and in some "Christian" periodicals) will never admit it, but we must acknowledge the difference between a good man "overtaken in a fault" and the discovery of a spiritual imposter.

We must also acknowledge the fact that even someone of the caliber of King David must suffer the consequences of adultery. It is a sad commentary on the spirituality of modern churches to see how many adulterers are allowed to remain in positions of leadership. The cover-up of adulterers, homosexuals, and even child molesters seems pervasive. In this regard, many ministers are no better than medical doctors in not being willing to demand personal accountability among their peers. This is a phenomenon that will certainly continue to bring additional embarrassment and consternation to the work of God.

That being said, it needs to be pointed out that sexual sin is not the primary problem in most churches today. There is another pandemic that is quickly destroying the modern church in America. Furthermore, this scourge is infinitely greater in destructive power than any of the sexual sins that the modern Pharisees seem to be consumed with.

The cancer that is eating the heart and soul out of the American church is the willingness of pastors and ministers to be bought, intimidated, or influenced by the purveyors of wealth and power. Too many pulpits have become little more than spiritual brothels where men are paid to provide pleasure for the rich and powerful. In the words of the Apostle Paul, they are "teachers, having itching ears."

Throughout America, pastors cater their sermons and writings to wealthy businessmen, politicians, celebrities, or other people of influence. Turn on the average "gospel" radio or television program. What do you hear? Prosperity theology. Entertainment evangelism. Positive Mental Attitude speeches.

In addition, most conservative Christian ministers would never dare challenge President George W. Bush or hardly any other prominent Republican, for that matter. Regardless of how unconstitutional or even unbiblical his policies and decisions might be, they refuse to address them. They either keep quiet or publicly support these fallacious decisions. What can such conduct be if it is not a deliberate attempt to grovel before power, to prostitute our message for the pleasure of men?

It seems that with far too many of today's pastors, the supreme desire is to be successful, to be popular, to be comfortable. Or worse, to accumulate money and wealth. We are looking for lavish lifestyles, opulent opportunities, or personal praise. And our preaching reflects it.

When is the last time you heard a sermon on hell or judgment? When is the last time you heard a preacher call sin by its first name? Most notable mega-churches proudly say that they never use the word "sinner." Lost, unredeemed souls are now called "pre-Christian" people. Words such as "repentance" have been removed from the vocabulary of the average pulpit in America today.

Yet, without sin and judgment, there is no grace and forgiveness. Without hell, there is no heaven. No repentance, no faith. No wrath, no mercy. No cross, no crown. No conviction, no Holy Spirit. No serpent, no Paradise. No transgression, no Gospel.

No, it is not physical adultery that is destroying our churches. The vast majority of America's pastors and ministers are moral men who are true to their wives and families. The problem is spiritual whoredom. Preachers need to renounce their friendship with the world (called spiritual fornication in Scripture), which includes the world's political and business leaders, and renew their vows to the God of the Bible. This, more than anything else, would bring true restitution and redemption to our nation.





© Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Lawsuit Initiated Over Illegal Alien Sanctuary Policy


LAW ENFORCEMENT / CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUED OVER ILLEGAL ALIEN SANCTUARY POLICY


Judicial Watch



Smiley Flag WaverJudicial Watch recently learned about a resolution under consideration by the Cook County, Illinois Board of Commissioners that would declare Cook County an official “Sanctuary County” for illegal aliens. The resolution would, in effect, conform the Cook County Sheriff’s Office immigration policy to a Chicago Police Department policy that prevents county employees from assisting with immigration enforcement and/or reporting suspected illegal immigrants to federal authorities. Judicial Watch launched an investigation to determine whether or not these policies and procedures are “consistent with the requirements of federal law.”


January 5, 2007


From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:


Judicial Watch Sues Chicago Police Department Over Illegal Alien Sanctuary Policy


You can add Chicago, Illinois to the list of cities under investigation by Judicial Watch for undermining federal immigration laws. Just before Christmas, on December 22, 2006, Judicial Watch filed an open records lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department seeking information about the department’s so-called “sanctuary policy” for illegal aliens.


Specifically, we’re asking the court to force the Chicago Police Department to respond to Judicial Watch’s October 13, 2006 Illinois Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents regarding policies that govern the interactions between police officers and suspected or known illegals.


Why Chicago?


Judicial Watch recently learned about a resolution under consideration by the Cook County, Illinois Board of Commissioners that would declare Cook County an official “Sanctuary County” for illegal aliens. The resolution would, in effect, conform the Cook County Sheriff’s Office immigration policy to a Chicago Police Department policy that prevents county employees from assisting with immigration enforcement and/or reporting suspected illegal immigrants to federal authorities. Judicial Watch launched an investigation to determine whether or not these policies and procedures are “consistent with the requirements of federal law.”


For those of you who have been following Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department, this will all sound familiar to you. Judicial Watch is battling ACLU lawyers in a lawsuit against the LAPD over “Special Order 40,” a policy that prohibits police officers from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status, and reportedly restricts police officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials. In that particular lawsuit, Judicial Watch is asking the court to prohibit the LAPD from expending taxpayer funds to enforce and maintain Special Order 40.


In addition to Chicago and Los Angeles, Judicial Watch is also investigating the immigration policies of the Orange County, California Sheriff’s Office, and police departments in Houston, Texas, and Westchester County, New York. (Judicial Watch is also challenging taxpayer-funded illegal alien day labor sites in Virginia and California.)


The illegal immigration crisis is bad enough without local governments further undermining the rule of law. Stay tuned …


Tom Fitton
President





Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.


All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Will Proposed Ethics Reforms Make A Difference?


POLITICS / PROMISES OF ETHICS REFORMS


Judicial Watch



Smiley Flag WaverCan we really trust members of Congress to enforce these new rules when they openly flouted the old ones without consequence?

Gary Condit, Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Jim McDermott, and Patrick Kennedy, and Alan Mollohan (a former co-chair of the Ethics Committee!) are examples of alleged wrongdoers who faced little-to-no ethics enforcement in the House despite evidently violating rules already on the books.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to lead “the most ethical Congress in history,” which is eerily similar to Bill Clinton’s hollow pledge to run the "most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.” (We all know how that turned out.)


January 5, 2007


From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Will Proposed Ethics Reforms Make A Difference?


As the 109th Congress begins, Democrats at least appear to be making an attempt to institute ethics reform in the House of Representatives. A new package of rules unveiled by the Democrats yesterday target financed travel, gifts and earmarks (special interest funding “hidden” in other legislation). It was passed by a vote of 430 to 1. Overall, the rule changes seem to be a step forward, but without any ethics enforcement to back them up, the new rules may mean nothing in the end.


The rules changes mean:

  • House members will no longer be allowed to travel on lobbyists’ or their clients’ dollars, and all travel financed by outside groups will be subject to pre-approval by the House Ethics Committee. Also, all travel on corporate jets will be set at market value cost.
  • Representatives will also be subject to a total gift ban, prohibiting them from accepting gifts from lobbyists. The previous ethics rules placed a $50 cap on all gifts, leaving lobbyists open to offering sports tickets and other gifts often purchased for less-than face value in order to evade the cap.
  • With respect to earmarks, committees would have to make the requests public and identify the requesting lawmaker under the new rules. Other legislative ethics changes include shorter voting windows, the inability to revise already-signed conference reports, and the inclusion of elected members into conference committee meetings.

That’s all well and good, but can we really trust members of Congress to enforce these new rules when they openly flouted the old ones without consequence?


Gary Condit, Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Jim McDermott, and Patrick Kennedy, and Alan Mollohan (a former co-chair of the Ethics Committee!) are examples of alleged wrongdoers who faced little-to-no ethics enforcement in the House despite evidently violating rules already on the books. Just last week, the House Ethics Committee let Michigan Congressman John Conyers off the hook even though he violated House rules by forcing his staff members to serve as his personal servants, valets, and as campaign staff while on the government payroll. And earlier this week, only two congressmen were fined for violating travel rules, despite the fact that dozens of members had flouted the rules. How much has changed in a few days?


Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to lead “the most ethical Congress in history,” which is eerily similar to Bill Clinton’s hollow pledge to run the "most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.” (We all know how that turned out.) Given the fact that Pelosi and company are at least half responsible for the breakdown of the ethics process in Washington, it’s going to take more than a few rule changes to convince me they’re serious about cleaning up corruption on Capitol Hill. The sheer number of seemingly corrupt members still in the House is staggering. Let’s hope that the Justice Department continues aggressive investigations and prosecution of corrupt members of Congress.


Tom Fitton
President





Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.


All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Barack Obama's Whitewater?


POLITICS / BARACK OBAMA'S WHITEWATER?



Judicial Watch



Smiley Flag WaverPress reports suggest Rezko has raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for Obama. What has he received in return for his generosity? (Such relationships are never one-sided.) New revelations surfaced this week indicating that Rezko was successful in persuading Obama to award a coveted internship with his Senate office to a Rezko business associate. (Incidentally, the business associate, John Armanda, has donated $11,500 to Obama’s campaigns.) Is there more to this story?


January 5, 2007


From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Barack Obamas's Whitewater?


Washington pundits are excited for a potential battle for the Democratic nomination for president between the “fresh-faced” freshman Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, and the consummate political insider, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. However, new revelations about a corruption scandal involving Obama suggest he may have more in common with Hillary than he would like to admit.


As you may recall, in November, press reports surfaced regarding a questionable land deal between Obama and Antoin “Tony” Rezko, an indicted political fundraiser. The long and the short of it is that Obama approached Rezko with the idea to simultaneously purchase adjoining lots in Southside Chicago. Rezko obliged. Obama obtained his lot for a reduced price. Rezko later sold a portion of his property to Obama. All of this took place while Rezko was the subject of a federal corruption investigation.


Political handicappers have begun to assess what these revelations might mean to Obama’s presidential aspirations, but personally, I’m not interested in the political fallout. The salient question ought to be what do Obama’s dealings with Rezko tell us, if anything, about the Obama’s ethics. Here are some thoughts.


  • First, Obama’s dealings with Rezko reveal a politician oblivious to the expectations of at least the appearance of integrity for those in public office. At the time Obama entered into his dubious land deal, it was widely known that Rezko was the subject of a federal investigation for allegedly trying to collect nearly $6 million in kickbacks from government deals. Obama and Rezko have been “friends” since 1990. Obama knew about Rezko’s shady reputation and ought to have avoided the appearance of impropriety.
  • Second, Obama’s dealings with Rezko suggest, at least, that Obama might be the kind of politician willing to peddle his influence. The Chicago Tribune reported that Obama purchased his land for $300,000 less than the asking price, while Rezko’s wife paid full price for the adjoining lot from the same owner. Did Mrs. Rezko partially subsidize the purchase of Obama’s new home? And what of the subsequent sale of a section of the Rezko property to Obama shortly thereafter?
  • Press reports suggest Rezko has raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for Obama. What has he received in return for his generosity? (Such relationships are never one-sided.) New revelations surfaced this week indicating that Rezko was successful in persuading Obama to award a coveted internship with his Senate office to a Rezko business associate. (Incidentally, the business associate, John Armanda, has donated $11,500 to Obama’s campaigns.) Is there more to this story?
  • Third, Obama’s dealings with Rezko suggest that Obama may be willing to cast aside his professed sense of ethics for personal financial gain. Obama, through his dealings with an indicted political fundraiser, was able to purchase his luxurious home at a cut-rate price and expand his property. Obama acknowledged the deal was a mistake, but only after the media made hay of it.


In 1992, the Clintons came into the White House despite evidence of their shady real estate dealings in Arkansas, a scandal known as “Whitewater,” setting the tone for what would be the most corrupt presidency in our nation’s history. Is this Rezko land deal Barack Obama’s Whitewater? Let’s find out sooner than later.

Tom Fitton
President





Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.


All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Petition To Pardon Former Border Patrol Agents


ACTION ALERT - PETITION / A CALL TO PARDON FORMER BORDER PATROL AGENTS


CFIF




A Call for President Bush to Pardon Former Border Patrol Agents
An Interview with Friends of the Border Patrol Chairman Andy Ramirez



Legal On September 19, 2006, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were sentenced to a combined 23 years in jail for what Congressman Tom Tancredo described as "doing their job," pursuing an illegal alien drug smuggler. Last month, the House Judiciary Committee failed to hold the hearing promised to the families of these former Border Patrol Agents. With less than two weeks left before they have to report to jail, the clock is ticking down for President Bush to issue a full Presidential pardon for Agents Ramos and Compean.

Recently, Andy Ramirez, Chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, joined CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino to discuss the importance of supporting the border patrol and its agents, the legal case against Agents Ramos and Compean and what must be done to restore fairness to these agents and their families.

What follows is the interview originally heard on "Your Turn -- Meeting Nonsense With Commonsense" on WEBY 1330 AM, Northwest Florida's talk radio.


Listen to the interview now.

TAKE ACTION -- Learn more about Agents Ramos and Compean's story and send a personalized blast fax letter to key Members of Congress and President Bush urging him to pardon the two border agents!




As a non-profit, 501(c)(4) corporation, the Center for Individual Freedom relies upon the generous private financial support of individuals, associations, foundations and corporations. Please consider becoming a proud supporter of the Center today. Donate online now.


Share this message with a friend now!


Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus Street, Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
info@cfif.org
http://www.cfif.org


The Center for Individual Freedom is a nonpartisan constitutional advocacy organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights in the legal, legislative and educational arenas.


All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below




Big Labor Targets The Secret Ballot


ELECTIONS - LABOR - UNIONS / BIG LABOR TARGETING THE SECRET BALLOT



CFIF



Big Labor's Latest Target: The Secret Ballot
[ Click On Title To View Article Source ]

Legal_Update With Democrats assuming control of Congress this week, Big Labor is targeting one of America's most basic institutions -- the secret ballot.

Union-proposed "card-check" legislation would eliminate secret balloting during representation elections, and thereby eradicate workers' fundamental right to vote without fear of intimidation or retribution.



As a non-profit, 501(c)(4) corporation, the Center for Individual Freedom relies upon the generous private financial support of individuals, associations, foundations and corporations. Please consider becoming a proud supporter of the Center today. Donate online now.


Share this message with a friend now!


Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus Street, Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
info@cfif.org
http://www.cfif.org

The Center for Individual Freedom is a nonpartisan constitutional advocacy organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights in the legal, legislative and educational arenas.


All logos, trademarks and postings on this site are property of their respective owner(s).




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below