Posts Tagged ‘Coral Ridge’


Healthcare: Visits or Calls to Capitol Hill Needed Now

November 6, 2009

Visits or Calls to Capitol Hill Needed Now

Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 3, 2009

I just returned from Capitol Hill, where Nancy Pelosi, unfazed by big conservative victories in Tuesday’s election in Virginia and New Jersey, is still planning to ram through a floor vote in the full House by Friday on the massive, 1,990-page government health care takeover bill that was just unveiled a few days ago. It’s an abuse of power and an utter outrage. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the face of widespread public opposition, has said the Senate will have to delay its version until December or even next year.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill, says Republican members were literally locked out of committee rooms where the bill was written. Recall that President Obama promised “transparency” and that any bill would be written in public. That did not happen.

Mrs. Bachmann is asking Americans to take some time on Thursday, Nov. 5, and do one of several things. She is organizing a noon rally at the U.S. Capitol building on the House side. Participants will then be encouraged to visit the offices of their congressman.

Any Americans within driving distance who can get there are encouraged to show up to support the effort to stop the bill. Those who can’t are asked to visit congressmen’s district offices back in their states. And those who cannot do that are encouraged to flood the Capitol switchboard with calls to their congressmen.

Please Take Action.

Please consider taking one of the following actions.

1) Pray that wisdom prevails and that Congress does the right thing.

2) If you can, please come to Washington, D.C. for Thursday’s rally at noon at the U.S. Capitol building on the House side.

3) Or visit your congressmen’s district office locally.

4) Call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or (202) 225-3121 and ask for your congressman’s office. Click here to locate your representative. Be polite but firm and tell them simply that you do not want this health care takeover passed, period.

More Background

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said Wednesday that it is now clear the health care bill “is not about health care, but about changing the fundamental relationship between Americans and their government.” In short, it will mean serfdom, as Americans will be made entirely dependent on federal bureaucrats for allocation of health care. Yes, this means “death panels” and the rest of it. Senior citizens will take the brunt of the “savings” that will be mandated, including $500 billion in designated cuts in Medicare. A study by Price Waterhouse Cooper estimates that the average family will have to pay $4,000 more for insurance by 2019, and individuals another $1,500.

Also in the bill:

Government insurance. The “public option” is still in. This provision would create a government insurance plan that would quickly drive private insurers out of business and ensure a “single-payer” system that is, in effect, socialized medicine.

Abortions. American taxpayers will be forced to pay for them. Pelosi and her fellow liberals have defeated 30 efforts in both Houses of Congress to prohibit such funding. The bill has language barring school-based clinics from actually committing abortions, but does nothing to keep the clinics from referring or facilitating abortions.

Domestic partners. Insurance tax benefits are expanded to unmarried couples, which means taxpayers will be subsidizing homosexual relationships.

Tax increases. Americans for Tax Reform has found 13 tax increases or new taxes in the $1.2 trillion bill, including the “medicine cabinet” tax that would prevent people from paying for non-prescription drugs through tax-deferred health savings accounts.

Your prayers, visits, calls or emails will make a difference!

Again, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or (202) 225- 3121 and ask for your congressman’s office. Click here to locate your representative. Be polite but firm and tell them simply that you do not want this health care takeover passed, period.

Remember, you are not alone. Many other national groups are encouraging their constituents to take these actions, too. If enough Americans respond, we will stop this ghastly power grab in its tracks before it even gets to the Senate.


Coral Ridge Ministries

Post Office Box 1920
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302-1920



Coral Ridge Ministries: ISLAM

August 14, 2009

Produced by Coral Ridge Ministries:

Radical Islam on the March:: A Christian Response to Modern Day Jihad.

The website is now up and can be viewed at


TV: Islam On The March: Coral Ridge Ministries

August 13, 2009

Produced by Coral Ridge Ministries:

Radical Islam on the March:: A Christian Response to Modern Day Jihad.

The website is now up and can be viewed at


Evangelism Explosion

June 17, 2009

EE is producing remarkable results.

Please view and download the selected pages from the EE magazine.   We’ve highlighted some key points.

D. James and Anne Kennedy Training Center for World Evangelism – Thousands Trained:  Centers located in Fiji, Ukraine, Vietnam, Indonesia and Middle East leading to salvations by the hundreds of thousands.

“…we work tirelessly on every continent to help believers regularly introduce others to the Savior.  We start by training believers, who reach out to unbelievers and care for them, fellowship with them, share the truth with them, and then train them to share their faith.  In doing this, we follow the example of Jesus.”




Coral Ridge Selects New Pastor

March 16, 2009
The members of Coral Ridge voted overwhelmingly to call Rev. William Graham Tullian Tchividjian to serve as senior minister. They also agreed to merge New City Presbyterian Church into our congregation and elected its officers to serve us.


Dear Friends,

Below is the official press release regarding the merger. Jane Rohman and Associates (who have been hired by my publisher to do PR for my forthcoming book) was kind enough to draft this statement. To those who may have questions, point them here. This statement is both official and authorized.


Monday, March 16, 2009, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida─After an exhaustive due diligence process and with the overwhelming support of church members and governing boards, Tullian Tchividjian, 36, has accepted the call to serve as senior pastor at South Florida’s Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. In doing so, the church of 650 people which Tchividjian founded 5 ½ years ago just outside of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida will merge with the 2,200-member Coral Ridge church founded in 1960. Tchividjian is only the second pastor in Coral Ridge’s history. Its founder Rev. D. James Kennedy pastored for 47 years and died in September of 2007 at the age of 76.

Yesterday Tchividjian preached to a full house at a combined worship service at Coral Ridge. Following the worship service, the members of Coral Ridge gathered for a congregational meeting and voted with 91% of the congregants accepting their Pulpit Nominating Committee’s invitation for Tchividjian to serve.

“I am honored and deeply humbled by the support and prayers we have received from all over the world as well as this vote and the unanimous vote of over 30 elders from both churches last week. I look forward to our future together,” says Tchividjian. He adds, “I consider it a great and high honor to follow such a giant in the faith. As different as some may think Dr. Kennedy and I are, our theological commitments are the same and our hearts beat with the same driving passion. Indeed, what he came to do in the 1950s—reach the people of south Florida with the Gospel and transform the world—is exactly what I have been seeking to do ever since I moved back home to start New City in 2003.”

For Tchividjian, it’s “a moment filled with irony and God’s unmistakable hand.” Growing up in South Florida and attending Coral Ridge with his family, Tchividjian was just under two years old when his grandfather Billy Graham preached the dedication sermon for the church sanctuary in 1974. He also attended and dropped out of the church’s school, Westminster Academy, at age 16, leaving school and home for the pleasure saturated streets of South Florida. After God saved him at age 21, Tchividjian graduated from college and seminary with honors. After a short two-year stint at a large Presbyterian church in Tennessee, Tchividjian moved back home to launch New City Presbyterian Church, only 12 miles away. Over the years, however, he has maintained a good relationship with Coral Ridge, hosting a weekly show on the church’s radio station, WAFG-FM 90.3, and speaking at both the church from time to time and his former alma mater, Westminster Academy.

And what does his grandfather think about the news? “He’s always been a huge supporter of whatever I’ve done, but this was especially exciting to him given the relationship he had with Dr. Kennedy over the years and his firm belief that Coral Ridge remains a beacon of light for the Gospel in South Florida and beyond. He couldn’t be more excited.”

In the coming months, Tchividjian’s focus will be on getting to know new people and working on making the transition as smooth as possible for everyone. “As we continue to move in this direction, I am exhorting members of both churches to ask God even now to be preparing you for one another. As elders, we all talked about the coming together of these two churches as being a marriage. One is not acquiring the other. And one of the elders from Coral Ridge said (and it was very well received) that the unity candle in a marriage ceremony is a great picture of what God seems to be doing here. No more us and them; them and us. Rather, two becoming one.”

The merged churches will operate under Coral Ridge’s existing name and in its current church facility at 5555 N. Federal Hwy, Ft. Lauderdale. “We’re planning for Easter Sunday to be the first Sunday that the one new church is worshipping together,” says Tchividjian. For now, details will be posted on both the Coral Ridge and New City websites. ( and

The merger will also result in a change of denomination. New City Church, which was a part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), will now become part of Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). “The denominations are both theologically conservative and have maintained a good working relationship over the years,” according to Tchividjian.

Tchividjian has degrees in philosophy from Columbia International University in South Carolina, and in divinity at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.

He has written two books published by Multnomah Books in Colorado Springs, a division of Random House: Do I Know God? Finding Certainty in Life’s Most Important Relationship, and Unfashionable: Making a Difference in the World by Being Different, due out April 21.

He and his wife, Kim, have three children—Gabe, Nate, and Genna.

Jane Rohman, 413-848-1407,

PS- Here’s a well written story on the whole thing.


illy Graham grandson to lead famed megachurch


Associated Press Writer

A widely-known megachurch founded by an architect of the religious right
and seen as a national political force selected a grandson of Billy
Graham on Sunday as its new leader.

The overwhelming vote by congregants at Coral Ridge Presbyterian in Fort
Lauderdale to appoint the Rev. Tullian Tchividjian could represent a
softening of the message spread by the Rev. D. James Kennedy, who was
pastor at the church until his death in September 2007.

Kennedy’s preaching against homosexuality and abortion made him one of
evangelical Christianity’s most divisive figures, and he worked to
inject his faith in all aspects of public life and the political
process, like allies the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Tchividjian insists he holds the same theological positions of Kennedy,
but he cuts a far different image.

His hair is spiky, his beard sometimes scruffy, his skin tan. He offers
a classic prodigal son story of youthful forays into drugs and sex, then
his return to the fold. He has said he wants people to know what
Christians are for as much as what they are against, and has rejected
the idea that politics is the most important way to change the country.

“I think that politics is one strategic area of cultural engagement,” he
said Sunday. “But I also think that the sphere of art and the sphere of
education and the sphere of media and technology are also strategic.”

Tchividjian, 36, is the middle of seven children born to Stephan
Tchividjian and Graham’s eldest daughter, Gigi. He attended Coral Ridge
– where Graham delivered the dedication ceremony – and its adjacent
school as a young man, but at 16 he dropped out, spending the next five
years partying on South Beach, seeking the company of women and getting

He says he eventually bottomed out, recommitting to Christ and then
joining the seminary and becoming a minister. He started a church of his
own, New City Presbyterian, which will merge with Coral Ridge under his
appointment. Tchividjian expects the two churches to formally come
together on Easter Sunday.

Coral Ridge claims thousands of members and its founding in 1959 marked
the creation of what would become one of the country’s first
megachurches. Based in a liberal, Democratic city, it is known as a
fiercely conservative voice on divisive social issues.

Its radio and TV outreach arm, Coral Ridge Ministries, has beamed
Kennedy’s message around the world, though Tchividjian says he will not
oversee that operation.

Tchividjian says he is honored to follow a “giant in the faith” at Coral
Ridge, but acknowledges he might look different.

“I think that at first glance it would seem that he and I were very
different people. But what I’ve discovered in this process is that we
have more similarities than differences,” he said. “He was a man of his
time and I’m a man of mine.”

Fort Lauderdale church voters give nod to evangelist’s grandson

Members of Fort Lauderdale’s Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church voted for
William Graham Tullian Tchividjian, the 36-year-old grandson of
evangelist Billy Graham, to become their new pastor by a 91 percent
margin on Sunday afternoon.

The move is expected to usher in a new era at the conservative
megachurch started by D. James Kennedy, the notable Moral Majority
member who influenced politics from the pulpit and died in September 2007.

Church leaders had vetted more than 150 candidates in a 1 ½-year search
and announced in January that they had formally asked Tchividjian,
founder of Margate’s New City Church, to become pastor.

On Sunday, he received a standing ovation as he gave a sermon about his
new role and gave a nod toward his predecessor.

”I consider it a great and high honor to follow such a giant in the
faith. As different as some may think Dr. Kennedy and I are, our
theological commitments are the same and our hearts beat with the same
driving passion,” Tchividjian said in a statement.

Members of Tchividjian’s 650-person church will begin attending services
at Coral Ridge in the coming months as the two churches merge —
boosting Coral Ridge’s membership close to 3,000.

Tchividjian will give his first sermon as pastor on Easter Sunday.


A Modern-day Islamist Inquisition?

January 6, 2009

Like our hate speech issues that Canada has endorsed at much peril to their liberty – and America is promised the same by Obama – we read about the “fairness doctrine” promised by the Democrats.

Both were promised by a new Administration as first priorities.

Dr. Walid Phares’ article is similar in importance – (Coral Ridge Ministries has hosted Dr. Phares at several of our conferences.)

A Modern-day Islamist Inquisition?

By Walid Phares

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an association of the world’s Islamic states, is pushing the United Nations to outlaw “defamation” of religion in general, and of one religion in particular.

My remarks that follow are based on 27 years of researching in the field of international relations and conflicts, and on a decade of teaching Religions and World Politics. Since I published my first book in Arabic in 1979, where I addressed the issue of relationships between civilizations and cultural blocs worldwide, I have had the opportunity to publish ten books and hundreds of articles focusing on the rise of ideologies including self-described, theologically-inspired ones such as Jihadism. I also had the opportunity to interact and meet politicians, legislators, authors and academics on three continents, particularly under the auspices of the European Foundation for Democracy. In addition, I was pleased to contribute to the preparation of legislation in the US Congress and initiatives at the European Parliament to defend religious freedom and basic rights of minorities around the world. Last but not least I was privileged to work with diplomats and NGOS on preparing for and passing UN Security Council Resolutions related to the Middle East.
From this background I have prepared a few comments about some initiatives put forth by members of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to be introduced at the UN Human Rights Council (headquartered in Geneva) and at the Durban II Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination. These initiatives center on the driving principle of sanctioning what was coined as “defamation” of religions, and particularly the Islamic faith, under the term “Islamophobia.”
Let me first state clearly that I do agree with UN efforts, declarations and legislations aimed at countering incitement to violence, physical and psychological against any religion or religious group, or on behalf of any religion or ideology against others. This principle is universal and should apply in protection of Muslims anywhere, and of non-Muslims as well. Any religion or religious group who are the victims of discrimination, intimidation or suppression must receive protection under international law. The United Nations and all of its institutions, including the Human Rights Council, as well as its conferences, including Durban II, must be even-handed and fair in extending their protection on a universal basis, to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, all other religions as well as to Atheists and Agnostics. No exception should be made to a particular faith or community and no privilege should be granted to one at the exception of the other. Thus we believe that the highest protection granted to all is epitomized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948. Creating another special Charter for one particular religion group would be an act of discrimination against all others.
However, the current proposal by the OIC member States to create legislation that would sanction perpetrators of “defamation of religion” has at least five problems.
Problem of Definition

First, there is a problem about the substance of the concept. Indeed how can one define “defamation” as an aggression against faith, any faith? Where is the limit between criticizing a set of beliefs or ideas and defaming a whole religion? How can members of a religion reform their system if they cannot criticize it? Will reform become synonymous to defamation? If the very concept of “defamation” is not clarified and thoroughly defined, legislation such a sought would lead to blocking reforms and punishing reformers. As it stands at this stage the wording of “defamation of religion” — even if some are well intentioned in pushing for it — is a stark reminder of the blasphemy laws of medieval times which were behind religious persecution and the Inquisition. Defamation of religion as a concept has to be specified and accepted within the state of international consensus so that it won’t become a serious setback to human rights instead of an additional protection to it.
Targets of “Defamation”

By opening the door to create a new set of protected categories under international law, in this case religions — and particularly the Islamic faith — one has to expect that other religious groups, faiths and sects will also want to protect their entities from “defamation.” To the camp irritated by so-called “Islamophobia” (since it still has to be debated internationally) other quarters will respond with “Christaphobia,” “Judeophobia” or “Hinduophobia,” let alone possibly “Atheophobia.”
Muslims have serious reasons to fear discrimination and these fears have to be addressed, but Christians, Jews and Hindus (to name a few) also have significant reasons to fear discrimination. One example can illustrate so-called “defamation” as applied theologically to non-Muslims: the principle of “Infidels.” Indeed, the theological identification of non-Muslims as Kuffar is considered by the latter as a standing, institutional, theologically-based defamation of their very faiths. If the “defamation of religion” initiative led by the OIC passes as legislation its very first implementation should automatically sanction the xenophobic principle of “Kuffar.” If that concept is to be sanctioned under “defamation” those who are attempting to abuse the concept of “defamation” would have opened Pandora’s box, exploding the relationship between modernity and religions. Is the OIC ready to include banning the term “Infidels” as part of its initiative?
Muslims’ Human Rights

Such an international law, if enacted, will be harmful first to Muslims seeking their Human Rights inside the Muslim world. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, particularly those claiming theological supremacy, are already abusing their own Muslim citizens on the ground of defamation to religion, as they see it. The Taliban oppression of the Afghan people, including women and minorities, was claimed to be in defense of their faith against those who defamed it. The use of the principle of defending religion from defamation by ideological regimes has led to unparalleled abuse of human rights.
Such abuses, in different versions and degrees, have been practiced in Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. In other more moderate or secular countries in the Muslim world, courts and clerics have issued rulings against so-called defamation, not always fairly. We’ve seen militant organizations and individuals taking the matter in their own hands despite the rule of law. Muslim women, students, artists, workers and secular political parties have been abused in the name of defending the faith against “defamation”.
Such realities have also been part of the history of both Western and Eastern Christianity and other religious civilizations. In the contemporary Muslim world — with all the tensions provoked by radicalization — such an international “defamation law” would provide oppressive regimes and extremist factions with a formidable weapon to suppress opposition and intellectuals. Those Muslims who see “otherwise” would be accused of defamation of the official interpretation of the faith. Radical Sunni and Shia clerics would invoke this international legislation to suppress each other’s sects. In short, if this concept is irresponsibly approved at the UN, it will have incalculable negative consequences on the Muslim world’s civil societies and their future.
Non Muslim Minorities

In Muslim countries where non Muslims form a minority, such an anti-defamation agenda will be devastating against the weakest segments of society. The legislation will be used by Islamist regimes and militant organizations to repress these minorities under the aegis of defending “faith.” Christian Copts in Egypt, who call for equality of treatment with other citizens, are often accused of “defaming” the state religion and thus kept in an awkward state of political backwardness. Baha’is, Christians and Jews are suppressed in Iran in the guise of defaming the established religious hierarchy. In Iraq, Assyro-Chaldeans have been physically attacked by Jihadi terrorists under the slogan of “insulting religion.” In many cases, as in South Sudan, minorities reject the application of Sharia on their own communities. With “anti-defamation” becoming UN sponsored, any rejection of Sharia will automatically become synonymous with “insulting the faith.” Hence religious minorities which should be protected under human rights laws will find themselves persecuted by such a declaration.
Jihadist abuse

Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of the adoption of vague “anti-defamation” legislation — allegedly to address “Islamophobia” — will be to embolden the Jihadi Islamist movements around the world into further violence. Indeed, both Salafists and Khomeinists already claim they are defending the Muslim world against infidels. If the OIC is successful in forcing such a declaration through the UN or the Durban Conference into international law, Jihadists around the world will score a tremendous moral and psychological victory by claiming that the present conflicts are indeed about religion, and that Islam is indeed under attack at the hands of Infidels. An anti-defamation declaration will validate al Qaeda’s agenda and reinforce the Iranian regime’s ambitions. The Jihadists’ ideology, based essentially on their interpretation of theology, builds radicalization by asserting that they are the defenders of the faith. A declaration against the defamation of Islam declaration will serve their strategic interests perfectly, and fuel their indoctrination processes. In short, it will protect their Takfiri ideology.
Dangerous Consequences

If an “anti defamation” declaration or covenant were to be forced through the UN Human Rights Council and the Durban II Conference in 2009 by the OIC, it would have dangerous consequences for the credibility of the UN Council in Geneva, for the state of international law, and for the state of human rights around the world. Among these consequences would be:
1. It will find itself opposed by many democratic and Human Rights NGOs and activists, both within the Muslim World and internationally, on the grounds of it creating discrimination against liberal Muslims, non Muslims and other faiths as well. Such a declaration will create more “phobia” than ever before since it is the product of the medieval concept of inquisition rather than the progressive concept of equality among individuals.
2. The Human Rights Council of the UN would thus be transformed by authoritarian regimes and radical ideologues into a “super regime” covering up and aiding in the oppression of democratic opposition, women and minorities in many countries. This would constitute a major blow to the credibility not only of the highest international institution in defense of Human Rights but eventually of the United Nations as a whole.
3. Such a declaration would naturally unleash a massive protest movement against the “super discrimination regime” by NGOs and activists from Arab, Muslim, and Hindu, African, Asian, Westerner and other backgrounds. The inquisitorial system advanced by members of the OIC against criticism and reform would be opposed as a return to the oppressive, medieval methods of the Dark Ages, which through harsh religious defamation laws caused great harm to Humanity and obstructed progress for centuries. There is no doubt that a contemporary Inquisition — as proposed by some members from the OIC — would deeply affect the Durban II Conference on Racism and Xenophobia, establishing a more lethal form of discrimination via this UN sponsored (and funded) event.
4. One would also expect to see Human Rights groups and pro-democracy movements demanding from national assemblies, particularly in liberal democracies, legislation to protect targeted segments of society such as women, intellectuals, artists, authors, publishers, minorities, reformists and other entities expected to suffer from “defamation persecution.” Democratic constitutions cannot accept a setback to their long evolution away from religious inquisition and theological legal frameworks. It is to be expected that civil societies will rise against such a modern-day inquisition and blast its authors, including unfortunately those UN institutions which were initially designed to protect individuals from religious persecution.
5. Last but not least one would not be surprised if NGOs and individual citizens would take the matter to courts around the world where justice is independent. Intellectuals and opinion makers would seek both protection and reparation from the potential implementation of such an international declaration or legislation. Governments who pushed the “defamation-inquisition” through the UN, and the latter as well, may find themselves taken to court, regardless of the results. The image of judges requesting states and international organization to pay reparation for moral and physical damages caused by a UN declaration responsible for discrimination is not a bright one, but could very much become reality if the OIC project, initially designed by radical ideologues, is not withdrawn or at least restructured.

Here are some suggestions which might help in defusing the emerging crisis between the OIC members who are pushing for this declaration and those pro-democracy and Human Rights NGOs who are opposing it.
1. We suggest that neutral members in the UN Human Rights Council intervene to prevent this crisis by calling for a special forum where both points of views are heard and a new consensus is built: Government representatives, NGOs, and International Organizations should be invited by member states of the Council who wish to engage in this mediation. The mediation forum must find ways to address the real and specific concerns of the OIC regarding the psychological stress induced by severe attacks on religion on the one hand and the concerns of the Human Rights community with regards the discriminatory dimension of the current “anti-defamation” project on the other.
2. We also suggest the organization of a special conference of experts to address the following questions:
a. Define the concept of defamation of religions in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
b. Define the body that can determine the nature of defamation of religions, including the concept of “Kuffar” (infidels) and incorporate this issue in the general discussion of Racism and Xenophobia at the forthcoming Durban II Conference.

In the end, we hope that the voices of reason within the United Nations will prevail over the movement towards increasing radicalization, and strike a balance between the right to be protected emotionally and the right of expression: the one must not eliminate the other.
Dr Walid Phares is a Visiting Fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington DC. Dr Phares is a professor of Global Strategies and author of numerous books on International Conflicts, including The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracies

Page Printed from: at January 06, 2009 – 12:44:55 PM EST


Creation Studies Institute

January 5, 2009

Dear friends,

You will find the Creation Studies Institute very valuable.

1001 West Cypress Creek Road Suite 220
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309


Liberal Censorship and Its Roots

December 3, 2008
Relating to the content of this article – you may be interested in viewing Coral Ridge Ministries productions on Hate Speech.
Assault on Liberty: The Impact of Hate Crime Laws, DVD
10 Truths About Hate Crime Laws
Hate Crime Laws, DVD
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 Columnist
Liberal Censorship and Its Roots
by David Limbaugh

The most unnerving aspects about the Democrats’ sweeping victory Nov. 4 are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents.


We keep hearing that Sarah Palin’s criticism of Obama for “palling around with terrorists” increased death threats against him, which is bogus in the extreme but consistent with the inveterate liberal tactic of chilling conservative speech by saying it incites violence.

Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the Plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama an innocuous question about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn’t remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis threatened criminal prosecution against candidate Obama’s critics. In Pennsylvania, lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to TV and radio stations that aired unflattering ads documenting Obama’s anti-gun record. The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice about the American Issues Project’s ad tying Obama to William Ayers. Obama supporters flooded Chicago radio station WGN with harassing calls during its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama.

On election night, Philadelphia police arrested a man who dared to wear a McCain-Palin ’08 T-shirt at an Obama celebration rally. What’s scarier is that the Obama crowd reportedly chanted with joy as cops arrested the man for exercising his freedom of political expression. According to the liberal worldview, arresting someone for disagreeing with you is not censorship, but implying someone is not patriotic is.

Obama has made no secret of his plan to pass “card-check” legislation, which some have described as the most radical revision of labor law since 1935. It would permit unions to eliminate secret ballots — against the wishes of 78 percent of union members — which would represent a radical blow to democratic principles.

Democrats fully intend to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, a euphemistically named regulation aimed at shutting down conservative talk radio, which Sen. Chuck Schumer has compared to pornography. Remember that conservatives have never advocated government action to suppress or censor the liberal media monopoly, which has existed for decades and still dominates mainstream media today. Their answer was the alternative media.

But what is even more frightening than the sinister schemes of liberal politicians to silence and criminalize political opposition is the apparent eagerness of rank-and-file liberals to go along with them, as witnessed by the many examples I’ve cited and numerous gleeful e-mails I get taunting me about the imminent re-invocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe this arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural  nstitutions and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual and enlightened. This view holds that conservative expression doesn’t deserve constitutional protection because it is inherently evil. As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, “We cannot tolerate the intolerable.”

This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It’s how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while nilaterallydeclaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It’s how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It’s how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise “fair elections” and pooh-pooh ACORN’s serial voter fraud in their own country. It’s how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don’t endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church’s direct electioneering for specific candidates. It’s how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while
romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. It’s how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents. It’s how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted. It’s how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. It’s how they can prevent the teaching of “intelligent design” in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science.

If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you’re in for a rude awakening.


VOTE 2008

October 24, 2008

The following is a production of Coral Ridge Ministries.

Vote 2008: