Tag Archives: U.S. Constitution

Why I joined the NRA, and why you should too

Embed from Getty Images//embed-cdn.gettyimages.com/widgets.js

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871

The gun debate has once again heated up in America in the aftermath of the recent Parkland, Florida school shooting.

As usual, a major target for the anti-gun crowd has been the National Rifle Association (NRA), who those liberals see as being at the vanguard of gun rights in the United States.

The fact remains that the killer in Florida was, once again, not an NRA member. In fact, none of the school shooters who have reigned terror down on American children over the last couple decades have belonged to the NRA.

What the NRA does, what makes it the major liberal target, is resolutely fight for 2nd Amendment gun rights with few restrictions.

The NRA was chartered in New York state back in 1871 to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis, and even more specifically to improve marksmanship within the United States military. The organization really came to prominence in 1873 after its members won a marksmanship contest with the best riflemen of Europe.

Over the ensuing decades, the NRA spread to many other states and continued to expand in influence. The NRA gained further prestige when Civil War heroes Ulysses S. Grant and Philip Sheridan, the former also a United States President, served as the organization’s eighth and ninth presidents.

In 1907, the NRA moved its headquarters to Washington, D.C. in order to improve its opportunities to advocate on behalf of gun owners. Those headquarters relocated to the current home of Fairfax, Virginia in 1998. In addition to its administrative offices, the Fairfax NRA headquarters is also home to the National Firearms Museum.

The museum is home to some 2,500 guns covering seven centuries of firearms history and development. Included are weapons which belonged to such historic figures as Napoleon Bonaparte, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Annie Oakley, and ‘Buffalo Bill’ Cody.

A total of nine U.S. Presidents have been NRA members: the previously mentioned Kennedy, Reagan, and Roosevelt, as well as William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, and current President Donald Trump.

From 1998-2003, famed American actor Charlton Heston served as president of the NRA. At the organization’s 2000 convention, Heston picked up a replica of a flintlock long rifle and stated:

“So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: ‘From my cold, dead hands!’

 

Heston repeated the phrase at the end of each NRA convention over which he presided. When he announced his retirement in 2003, he concluded by repeating “From my cold, dead hands.

The NRA sponsors programs on firearms safety, including hunting safety. It trains firearms instructors and issues credentials for same. It hosts and sponsors a number of shooting competitions. The organization publishes at least a half-dozen regular periodicals as well.

Their own “brief history” of the organization at the official NRA website reveals both the size of its membership and its primary modern activities:

“While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly five million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.”

I first fired a gun as a small boy of about 10-11 years old when my father gave my younger brother and I a brief lesson in the woods of the Pocono mountains of Pennsylvania. Dad was a Philadelphia Police supervisor at the time, and showed us how to safely use his service revolver.

I never fired a real gun again until I followed in Dad’s footsteps, joining the Philadelphia Police Department in 1990. My brother had done the same the previous year.

I purchased my first private firearm a couple of years later, a small five-shot Smith & Wesson air weight revolver that I still own today.

Over the years, I considered joining the NRA, but it was never enough of a priority that I actually took the time or effort to follow through. That finally changed due to the events of this past week.

I finally logged on and joined the NRA, which you can do at that just passed link, due to principle. Seeing the organization and its spokespersons come under a ferocious attack by political liberals was the last straw.

In the most public attack, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch appeared at a “town hall” sponsored by liberal cable news outlet CNN in the aftermath of the Florida murders. 

Madeline Osburn for The Federalist reported that as Loesch and her security detail walked toward the stage, audience members shouted at her phrases like, “murderer,” “child killer,” and “burn her.” For the record, Loesch has never killed anyone.

Per Matt Vespa with Townhall, in a subsequent interview Loesch stated that she and the organization were accused of being child murders for supporting Second Amendment rights.

In recent days, a number of companies withdrew support or cut relationships with the NRA in various ways. For instance, car rental companies Alamo, Avis, Budget, Enterprise, and Hertz each eliminated discounts for NRA members.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out earlier, the killer in Florida was not an NRA member. But these American businesses withdrew their discounts and other support due simply to pressure from liberal organizations and individuals. 

The effect of the moves was to hurt individual NRA members more than the actual organization. Again, those individual NRA members had nothing to do with Parkland or any other school shooting.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was part of the original ‘Bill of Rights’, the first ten “amendments” or updates, changes, and additions to the original Constitution.

Passed by the U.S. Congress on September 25, 1789, that 2nd Amendment reads as follows: 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nelson Lund and Adam Winkler at the Constitution Center website explain that “the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.” 

In my own first response to the Parkland shooting, published one week ago today, I called on Americans who care about any particular facet of the gun debate to engage in what I believe to be necessary conversation.

“We need to talk. We must be able to find a way to make the Parkland’s, the Columbine’s, and the Sandy Hook’s more difficult, and even more rare than they are already. About that, there should be no debate.  Let’s talk. Not shout one another down. Let’s open our ears, minds, and hearts. Let’s not be afraid to start the conversation. As with most things, we may not end up with everything we want. But together for once, let’s come up with some answers.”

However, talking is not enough. We also must be willing to back up our beliefs and a verbal or written intellectual expression with action. That was why I chose to finally join the NRA this week.

Wayne LaPierre has been the NRA’s executive vice-president and chief executive officer since 1991. In his speech at CPAC 2018 this past week, LaPierre labeled the attacks on his organization correctly when he called them political attacks.

“They hate the NRA. They hate the 2nd Amendment. They hate individual freedom. In the rush of calls for more government, they’ve also revealed their true selves. The elites don’t care – not one wit – about the American school system and school children. If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them, it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. They care more about control, and more of it. Their goal is to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms.”


…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Our Founding Fathers had it right, as they usually did. Healthy, responsible Americans need to be allowed to own firearms, whether for hunting, or personal protection, or to one day defend their communities, should that become necessary.

David French at the National Review wrote a piece on why it’s “Not cowardly to be conservative on gun rights” in the aftermath of Parkland. In his piece, French made the following statement regarding the usual liberal progressive attacks:

Angry voices take an extraordinarily complex social, cultural, and political phenomenon, boil it down to preferred progressive policy provisions, and then declare everyone who opposes their ideas a craven weakling in thrall to the NRA.”

The NRA not only fights on behalf of that 2nd Amendment Right, but also supports training and safety. It is a wholly responsible organization made up of strong, principled, Constitution-loving and respecting American citizens.

I would urge all American gun owners and those who otherwise support the 2nd Amendment and overall American freedom to follow my lead. Join the National Rifle Association today.

Will Freedom of the Press Fall in Winter?

I like to consider myself a “Constitutionalist” – I’m a big fan of the United States Constitution. I believe it to be one of the most inspired governmental documents that mankind has ever conceived.

I believe that in court rulings it should be interpreted narrowly by modern jurists.

I also believe that the Constitution as originally conceived by our nation’s Founding Fathers was inspired by God Almighty, and that America has received blessings over our history because of a continued striving towards what we stated from the very beginning when we declared ourselves free: that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The U.S. Constitution has built into it an ‘amendment’ process, a means of altering, adding to, or taking away from the freedoms guaranteed to “We the People” by our nation and it’s laws.

This amendment process has been successfully utilized to do just that in the past. There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution which have been ‘ratified’, or passed into law by the states.

The first ten of these amendments came almost immediately. Within a couple of years of the original Constitution being ratified, the first ten amendments had been proposed and added.

They became collectively known as the “Bill of Rights“, and contain protections to freedoms that we all as Americans have come to take for granted. Included among them was this very first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is divinely inspired genius right there in the body of the First Amendment. It encapsulates in a few sentences our basic freedoms of religion (not from religion, by the way), our freedom of speech, our free press, and our right to gather in protest of the government itself when we have legitimate grievances.

Why was a freedom “of the press” deemed to be so important? It is my position that it was of basic, fundamental importance back then in colonial times, and remains just as important today. This freedom, like many others in that beautiful document, is under attack from a government that increasingly does not like being restricted by such constitutional principles.

Let me preface this particular discussion also with the fact that my choice of professions has been in law enforcement. I have been an American law enforcement officer for more than 23 years. Between myself and other members of my family, we have served our municipality in this role for more than a half century.

I make that preface in admittance of the fact that there has always been and will continue to be a tension at times between the two professions of law enforcement and the media. We recognize the importance and necessity of their role, but we always strive to ensure our first priority of protecting evidence and preserving certain facts and knowledge as we pursue justice for victims of criminal acts.

The media simply should not have the absolute final say in releasing all the details to the public of the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of every crime.

I think we can all agree on the common sense of wanting to protect certain aspects of an investigation for public safety and/or prosecutorial reasons. Sometimes we disagree with the media on the particulars, and these circumstances are often decided by judges in the specific court cases.

We have to try to ensure that people do indeed receive a fair trial, which would be pretty difficult if the media presented all of the evidence and testimony on public news broadcasts before and during such legal proceedings, that much is obvious to anyone. Cases simply cannot be tried through television presentations by TV anchors and reporters.

The role of the media is to keep the public informed. They also have an investigative role: to ensure that the public is indeed receiving truthful information from not only law enforcement, but the government as a whole. This is the vital import of the purpose of including a “Freedom of the Press” within the First Amendment: to ensure that a corrupt government, or individual corrupt officials, or specific corrupt instances do not occur without the knowledge of the American people.

All of this prefaces the current case of Fox News reporter Jana Winter, who is under attack from the state of Colorado in relation to her reporting on the sensational case of mass murderer James Holmes. He is the man who went on a shooting rampage inside an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, killing 12 and injuring dozens more during a premier showing of the film “Batman, The Dark Knight Rises” in July 2012.

Less than a week after the shooting, Winter reported that Holmes had sent a notebook which supposedly contains written descriptions, drawings and other illustrations of the attack he was then planning to a University of Colorado psychiatrist prior to the shooting. Winter claimed that she had received the information regarding the notebook from unidentified “law enforcement sources.” There is a belief that this notebook sat unopened in the university mail room for as much as a week prior to the shooting.

Defense attorneys were disturbed by Winter’s reporting, claiming that it violated a judge’s gag order, and that it denied Holmes a fair trial by leaking potentially incriminating information. Various law enforcement officers were interviewed, and all denied being the source. The judge in the case then ordered Winters to turn over all of her relevant materials by this coming January.

On her side, Winter has denied the court’s request. She has traveled to Colorado from her New York home base four times in relation to the case. She claims that the right to protect her sources is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and even additionally by New York’s media shield laws which give reporters in the Empire State absolute protections in confidential newsgathering, including a right to keep sources private.

Colorado has similar media shield laws, but they are far less protective for reporters, and include that members of the media can be jailed for refusal to name sources, which cannot happen in New York. In short, if ultimately forced to travel to Colorado in January and turn over the materials, and on refusal of same, she could be jailed until such times as she complies with the judge’s order.

Winter has been fighting against being forced to turn over the information. In New York, she narrowly lost a 3-2 decision in a lower court back in March. One of the dissenting judge’s noted the importance of her stand when he commented that she “relies upon confidential sources for her livelihood” further stating that “her sources would not speak to her if she divulged their identities.” The judge also correctly pointed out that forcing her to release these sources would be “nothing short of undermining her career, the very means of her livelihood.

This coming Tuesday, Jana Winter will return to court, this time in Albany in front of the highest court in the state. There the New York State Court of Appeals will hear her plea to reverse that lower court ruling. It may be her last chance to lawfully avoid that January trip to Colorado where her credibility or her freedom will be put on the stand.

It’s a shame that things have reached this stage in the United States of America. Jana Winter didn’t kill anyone, James Holmes did, and that is where all of the focus and effort should be in this case. Winter is simply a reporter who was given interesting information in a high-profile case by a member of law enforcement. She then reported on the information, which was indeed interesting at the time, under the belief that reporting from New York she had certain protections.

The information released by Winter was no more sensational than what Holmes actually did, in fact it was far less. Holmes walked into a movie theater and in front of hundreds of witnesses he blasted away at the heart of a Colorado community. There is tons of evidence against James Holmes. The simple revelation of the existence of the journal and drawings does nothing to change what Holmes did that night, and nothing that alters his guilt.

There are legitimate issues raised by the presence of the journal and the drawings. Did someone know about the intentions of James Holmes before the shooting took place? Was someone informed who then chose to ignore or lessen the importance of the information? Did the university or any of it’s employees, even law enforcement itself have any knowledge of the danger posed by Holmes prior to the shooting?

Even if none of them knew, could they or should they have known? The public has a legitimate right to know whether Holmes attack could have been avoided.

From where I sit, seeing both sides of the issue, this is simply an attack against the First Amendment itself. Yes, the media has responsibilities. A responsibility to respect the criminal case. A responsibility to not release vital evidence of importance to the successful defense or prosecution of a criminal case. I fail to see how that responsibility was abridged in this case.

The media also has a responsibility to the public, and it also has Constitutional rights in pursuing and ensuring that it meets that responsibility. That right to truthfully and completely report a story on behalf of the American public is what Jana Winter did on Fox News. Let’s hope the higher court makes the right decision in the coming week, for her, and for all of us.

The Republic For Which It Stands

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Every good American knows and has said those words hundreds, if not thousands of times in their lives. Learning and reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance” to our flag is part of our shared civics lesson as citizens.

But do we really think of the detail in those words as we say them? After all, in saying them we are theoretically taking an actual pledge to stand behind it’s principles.

One of the most important and least appreciated of those principles is the simple line “and to the republic for which it stands” which speaks to our nation’s form of government. Did someone tell you that the United States of America was a democracy? That would be incorrect. America is actually a “constitutional republic”, and there is a very big, very important difference, one you should become familiar with if you are not already.

In a true democracy, the majority rules, either by direct voting results or through the decisions of their elected representatives. These are the two basic forms of democracy: direct and representative. The American Revolution was undoubtedly fought in part to form a more democratic society and government, as opposed to the tyranny experienced previously by the former Colonies under the British monarchy.

However, once that freedom was won and our Founding Fathers set to the task of determining and establishing our actual form of government, what they came up with was not a direct democracy, nor was it the representative democracy that many mistakenly believe exists.

These brilliant men such as George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin believed that America should be concerned with the protection of the rights of the individual. This means that people who don’t agree with the majority – and keep in mind that a “majority” will frequently change over time and across various issues – should also have their rights protected.

To truly understand the U.S. Constitution, one needs to read and understand what has become known today as “The Federalist Papers“, the series of articles and essays written by Madison, Jay, and Hamilton in order to promote that effort. James Madison has become known as the ‘Father of the U.S. Constitution’, and his ‘Federalist No. 10’ is considered one of the most important political writings in our history.

Specifically in ‘Federalist No. 10’, the 10th in the series of these important articles, Madison states that democracies tend to become weaker as they get larger, and will tend to suffer more violently from the effects of faction. However, a republic can get stronger as it gets larger, and will combat faction by it’s very structure. The difference and it’s importance should be obvious to anyone paying attention to 21st century American politics, divided into rigid factions as at no other time in our history.

As he exited from a building after helping write the original U.S. Constitution, Ben Franklin was famously approached by a woman who asked him what type of government the group had come up with for the nation. Franklin’s historic reply: “A Republic – if you can keep it.

In a constitutional republic, the officials are indeed elected as representatives of the people. However, those representatives must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government’s power over the citizens.

A true constitutional republic, such as the United States of America, is a government controlled by law, not one where that government actually does the controlling. The law does the controlling. That is America. It is the Constitution that rules, not whatever elected officials happen to be in office at any given time.

So when the current President of the United States, who will in fact not be in power any longer just 3 1/2 years from now, and whose political Party may lose effective power as soon as a year from now, makes statements such as “elections have consequences” he is treading on dangerous ground. Winning an election does not give one person or Party absolute power. The power rests in the law, in the Constitution.

If they think about it for a logical minute, supporters of Obama want no parts of “elections have consequences” as a ruling principle. All they need for a perfect example is the eight years prior to the current administration, when a man they still despise, George W. Bush, was the President of the United States. Were they willing to simply sit back quietly because elections have consequences? Hardly. And in fact, their favored politicians and Party will lose elections in the future as well.

No, President Obama and Democrats, it is not we the people who must accept that elections have consequences at all. Instead, it is you who must accept that you swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. You must recognize that many people, more than 60 million who directly voted against you, do not share your values. You must gain as much as you can of your political and social agenda through negotiation, not by force, and must accept that you will never get all of what you want.

The next time that you pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, think of the words as you say them, rather than simply droning on out of some rehearsed obligation. You are pledging allegiance to our “Republic“, to our U.S. Constitution, and are doing so recognizing that we are one nation under God, who guided us down this path in the first place.

2010 American of the Year: Ron Paul

Embed from Getty Images

 

There was no bigger development on the American political and social scene in 2010 than the emergence to power of the “Tea Party“, and that movement arguably had no bigger inspiration than Texas congressman Ron Paul.

Emerging in the wake of the disastrous Presidential election of 2008 that saw Barack Obama win the race to the Oval Office for the Democrats, the Tea Party (basing it’s moniker on the historical ‘Boston Tea Party’) espouses a firm adherence to the U.S. Constitution, drastic reductions in government spending, and reducing the national debt and budget deficit.

A longtime critic of what he perceives to be the frequent misuse of our nation’s military power by the American military-industrial complex, Paul inspired the Tea Party with his Libertarian-based run for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. Paul fell short, but his agressive criticisms of the American foreign, domestic, and monetary policies, especially in attacks on the Federal Reserve system, struck a chord with many.

For his leadership example and principled stand on the vital economic and Constitutional issues at this fragile time in American history, Ron Paul is named as this website’s annual “American of the Year”, following in the footsteps of previous honorees Glenn Beck (2009), George W. Bush (2008), Chuck Cassidy (2007), Billy Graham (2006), Bill O’Reilly (2005), and the first honoree Pat Tillman from 2004.

Born and raised in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul went on to Gettysburg College and then to med school at Duke before becoming a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960’s. On leaving the military, Paul became an obstetrician, deliving more than 4,000 babies in the ob-gyn field across two decades before turning solely to politics.

He first ran for President in the 1988 election as a member of the Libertarian Party, finishing 3rd in receiving .5% of the popular vote. More than trying to actually win, Paul wanted to begin to spread Libertarian values as an alternative to traditional Republican and Democratic Party platforms. Those values include strong emphasis on civil liberties, less government regulation, and military/diplomatic non-interventionism in a generally less powerful state.

In 1996, Paul sought a return to Congress, where he had held a seat from Texas during a portion of the 1970’s and 80’s, and won in a hard-fought campaign. After that he built his political popularity and power to the point where he was winning re-election fairly easily, now serving in the U.S. House of Representative from Texas’ 14th District.

Inspired by many of Paul’s ideals, the Tea Party candidates upset Republicans in a number of elections this year and became a viable political force with the elections of politicians such as U.S. Senators Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Mike Lee in Utah, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Dean Murray in the New York State Assembly, and Paul’s own son, Rand Paul, to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky.

While Ron Paul himself has had limited and perhaps just regional actual election success, his inspirational ideals and speeches have changed American politics and may have begun a genuine push-back by the more conservative side of American society in an age when liberalism and even socialism are rearing their ugly heads. For this inspiration and leadership, Ron Paul is the 2010 American of the Year.

NOTE: To view the write-ups for all of the ‘American of the Year’ winners simply click on to that ‘Tag’ below this article at http://www.mattveasey.com

 

Britt Hume’s advice to Tiger Woods

Everyone pretty much knows the story of Tiger Woods’ recent fall from grace. It became public that the mega-star athlete and corporation head was a serial adulterer.

The married Woods is the father of two kids in diapers and cashed in greatly not only on his golfing acumen, but also on a squeaky-clean family man image.

Since the numerous affairs began to become public on Turkey Day following a late night domestic incident and auto accident at his home, Woods’ sponsorship deals have disappeared and his golf career put on hold as his family disintegrated in public.

Into this mess last Sunday waded Fox News political analyst and veteran newsman Britt Hume. On the program ‘Fox News Sunday’, the network’s key Sunday news offering on major events, the panel participants were commenting on the big stories in the coming year. In the category of sports, Hume decided to tackle the immediate future of Tiger Woods, opining that Woods would indeed recover his golfing career this year.

However, Hume did not stop there. He went on to add that though Woods, who is believed to be a follower of Buddhism in his religious leanings, would indeed regain his golfing status, he might have a more difficult time in battling and overcoming his personal moral demons. Here is the full, exact quote by Hume at it’s relevant point:

My message would be to Tiger..turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Uh oh, take cover, Britt Hume! Head for the hills! Here come the leftists and atheists with their pitch forks! A Christian daring to go on national television and expound that the best course of action for a fallen human being to take would be to turn to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and redemption? An outrageous scandal in the making!

The responses from the liberals was fast and furious this past week. A perfect example was Huffington Post blogger Eve Tahmincioglu, who termed Hume’s commentary “bigotry” and further stated she could only “loosely” call him a journalist. Hume has worked for UPI, has been ABC’s chief White House correspondent, and has been in the industry for 40 years, having twice been named ‘Best in the Business’ by the American Journalism Review.

But that is what liberals do best when their ideals, or lack of them, are challenged. Rather than express their own positive messages that extol their own ideas, liberals attack and smear, taking a page from their Saul Alinsky bible. As Britt Hume showed last Sunday, mainstream America is no longer afraid of these fringe radical attacks on American traditionalism and religious freedoms.

The fact is that the U.S. Constitution does not include any references whatsoever to any ‘separation of church and state’, and in fact makes numerous references to God, as do numerous other documents including the Declaration of Independence. Rather than stifling or eliminating references to religion, the Constitution simply protects the right of Americans to freely express their religious beliefs without being forced to embrace a state-sponsored particular religion.

For decades now, Christians have been under attack by left-wing radicals who embrace atheist concepts as a part of their socialist or communist agendas. It has been particularly Christians who are attacked because Christianity is far and away the leading religious belief system in America, and because our nation was founded largely by Christians acting on the principles that were espoused by their belief system.

All that Britt Hume did last Sunday was give public utterance to the exact teachings of Jesus Christ Himself. Christ taught “Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whomever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” It just doesn’t get any clearer than that.

What Tiger Woods did was to sin, plain and simple. Sin has been called “the greatest evil, being the root and source of all evil.” Tiger needs to acknowledge his sin for what it is, he needs to seek forgiveness from his God for that sin, and he needs to seek redemption in the only way possible by believing in and accepting Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

Now many believers in other religious systems would take umbrage to that statement. They might believe that there is some other path that Tiger Woods can take to ask for forgiveness and to receive his redemption. Whatever you believe, that isn’t the point. The simple point is that Britt Hume, and the nearly 80% of Americans who are also Christian, legitimately believe what he said is plain and simple truth, and that they have a Constitutionally protected right to express that belief.

Expect further attacks from the liberal media including newscasters from other networks, comedians, politicians, and members of other faith systems. At the same time, it is long past time for the more than 200 million Christian Americans to stand up for ourselves and for Christ in a public manner. If they want a fight, it’s time to make it a two-sided brawl, for there is nothing more important to humanity or to individual men than the salvation of our immortal souls.

It is not only truth that Jesus Christ is the only way to true redemption for your sins, for Tiger Woods sins, but it is also truth that you will undeniably and absolutely find the peace of mind and the wholeness of self that all human beings seek if you simply do what Britt Hume advised Tiger Woods to do: “turn to the Christian faith“, to Jesus Christ and his Word.

NOTE: This is a continuation of the regular ‘Sunday Sermon’ series, all entries of which you can view by clicking on that label below this aritcle at http://www.mattveasey.com