According to the Obama administration, I am a potential terrorist who threatens the security of the United States.  Why?  Because, among other reasons, I express principled opposition to abortion, lax immigration, same-sex marriage and a *one-world government.  This assessment is documented in a public report the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently disseminated to all state and local law enforcement agencies (found here).

Wow!  Did I just wake up in a country ruled by a totalitarian regime that fears the peaceful, political opposition of its law-abiding citizens, rather than a country founded over 200 years ago upon peaceful dissent without government harassment?  Simply stated, this DHS report is deeply offensive and troubling.  The report’s transmittal to local law enforcement agencies signals its possible use for the profiling of citizens by the local intelligence “fusion centers” that are already operational all across America.

Will this blog subject me to such profiling?  If so, I will legally defend my First Amendment rights while clutching the Bible, a portrait of George Washington and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

On this 2009 Tax and Tea Party Day, it is fitting to hear that many IRS employees are complaining about an unacceptable double standard (article): They can be fired for filing their personal income tax return late, although their boss, Obama-appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was never disciplined for his late payment of $34,000 in taxes.  The list of non-tax paying Obama nominees also includes former Senate Majority Leader and first Health and Human Services Secretary pick Tom Daschle ($128,000) and newest HHS appointee Kathleen Sebelius ($7,040).

I’m certainly not advocating a refusal to pay taxes.  Nevertheless, it is frustrating to send a check to Uncle Barry Sotero, knowing his Chief Financial Officer, of all people, didn’t pay his taxes until he was nominated for the job and the violation became embarrassing to his political savior.  Any other president would have been forced by the rabid news media to withdraw the nomination.  The Chosen One and his disciples get a free pass.

I have rarely seen a more egregious example of discrimination against and intolerance of Christianity than an incident that occurred at Christmas time in 2007 at the College of Alameda, as reported by WorldNetDaily. The college threatened to suspend two students simply because one of them dared to pray for a sick professor privately in her office with her consent.  Another professor walked in on them while they were praying and apparently reported the "ghastly" incident to the college administration.  A few days later, that student and a friend received a letter from the college accusing them of "disruptive or insulting behavior" and "willful disobedience."  The student who was not present for the private, but somehow "disruptive" prayer time appears to have been threatened by the college simply because she later joined the perpetrator outside of the professor's office.  The two students are currently defending themselves with a Federal lawsuit against the college.

It is a sad day in America when a student cannot engage in consensual, private prayer with a sick professor without being threatened with suspension. This is most certainly illegal religious harassment.  These kinds of discriminatory incidents are rapidly increasing in post-Christian America.  As a evangelical Christian, I am beginning to feel like a pariah in the country my Christian forebears founded.  The postmodernists, atheists, secularists and liberal "Christian" imposters don't want us to manifest our faith anywhere outside of our home or church.  Actually, even those places are increasingly under threat.  For example, people have been accused of zoning violations for having a Bible study in their private home, while a book club meeting in the neighborhood is ignored.  Churches have been threatened with the revocation of their income tax exemption for daring to take a politically incorrect stand on a ballot referendum issue the Bible clearly addresses, such as homosexuality and abortion.

Homosexual marriage has now dramatically leapfrogged from just two predictably-liberal New England states to a once-bedrock conservative Midwest state, Iowa.  As widely reported in the news media, the Iowa Supreme Court has ordered the legalization of homosexual marriage by overturning the statutory ban passed by the state legislature.  Starting April 24th, Iowa homosexuals won't be the only gays lining up for a marriage license.  Iowa law does not require residency for a license, so out-of-state gays will be allowed to marry in Iowa, return to their home state and demand legal recognition nationwide.

This brazen usurpation of legislative power by the judicial branch forces a fundamental redefinition on the people of Iowa that they had obviously rejected through their duly-elected representatives. This development turns democracy on its head by imposing government from the top down.  A reversal of this violation of the separation of powers will be difficult to achieve in Iowa.  The legislature has already failed once to pass and place on the ballot a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a move that, if ultimately successful, would now overrule the state supreme court's order.  With an unprincipled legislature, the citizens of Iowa have little recourse, because the state's constitution provides no initiative process for voters to bypass the legislature and directly place an amendment measure on the ballot.

The Iowa Supreme Court attempted to justify its ruling by claiming the statutory ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution's "equal protection under the law" clause.  In the days ahead, it may become painfully obvious that this rationale opens a Pandora's Box for other redefinitions of marriage.  If a ban on gay marriage violates equal protection, doesn't a ban on bigamy do likewise?  What about group marriage, which features one certificate with three or more names?  What about incestuous marriage?  What about pedophilic marriage?  What about bestial marriage?  What about marriage for a person and an inanimate object, such as a car?

As ridiculous as some of these possibilities sound, a legal crusade to eliminate all of these vestiges of "equal protection" violations could decimate marriage as we have known it and reduce it to a joke.  Marriage becomes whatever you want it to be.  Then it really becomes nothing at all, except arrogant rebellion against God's created order.  So go ahead, travel to Iowa, get a lawyer, sue to marry your beloved toaster and demand your equal protection under the law.  The democracy-violating Supreme Court will probably oblige you.