The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award given to American citizens. It should be reserved for those who have embodied the quest for genuine liberty, and who have warned against threats to that liberty. That’s why President Reagan gave one of these medals, posthumously, to Whittaker Chambers, a man who put his personal reputation, his career, and possibly even his life, on the line when he revealed what he knew about the underground communist network within the U.S. government. That’s what this medal is supposed to signify.

President Obama has made a mockery of this award. Yes, I realize that the president has the prerogative to award this to whomever he wishes, and political beliefs are going to influence those choices, but sometimes a line is crossed. Let me talk about three of this year’s recipients.

Very few people have ever heard of Dolores Huerta, but conservative commentators lit up the internet yesterday with information about Huerta the president cleverly chose not to share. Here are some highlights:

• Honorary Chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the U.S. and the principal U.S. affiliate of The Socialist International
• Professed Marxist
• Believes the War on Terror is really a war on immigrants
• Board member for the following radical groups: Feminist Majority, Latinas for Choice, the Center for Voting and Democracy, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [the name sounds good, but it's another Media Matters-type organization]
• In 2006, she said, “Our theme will be: Republicans hate Latinos”

Giving a medal of freedom/liberty to an avowed Marxist is the ultimate in oxymorons. The two couldn’t be more opposed. Yet what this reveals is that the president himself holds the same views. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be honoring her.

Another recipient was former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Now, what could be wrong with honoring a man who served on the highest bench in the land? That would only make sense, right? Superficially, yes. But the philosophy Stevens brought to the Court was of the farthest-Left variety. He even gave an opinion on a partial-birth abortion case that said to deny a woman the “right” to have her unborn child put to death while being birthed would be to deny her “liberty” to make such a decision. Stevens said nothing about the right of the unborn child to have liberty. The unborn child didn’t matter at all to him. His concept of liberty is radical licentiousness. Licentiousness is a rather long word; let me simplify it: sin. So now we have a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner who won’t even protect the life of an unborn child at the very point of birth. This is tragic . . . and laughable, if one can truly laugh at the plight of innocent children.

I’m not aware of the list of recipients over the past years, but I’m sure Stevens is not the only pro-abortionist who has been so honored. It’s just that in this case, his decisions have made their mark on an entire nation. His influence was not indirect, but direct. He is one of the reasons we still fight the fight against partial-birth abortion. Giving him a medal of freedom is hypocritical at the least; an abomination might be a better term.

Another recipient was singer-songwriter Bob Dylan. This one is almost comical to me. Weirdly, as befits his persona, Dylan showed up to receive his award wearing sunglasses. Well, you know, those White House lights are pretty bright. One may be tempted to ask just what Dylan has done to deserve this award, and to be placed on the same pedestal as Whittaker Chambers. I’m certainly asking.

I grew up in the sixties. I remember Dylan and his songs quite well. The songs were all of the protest variety. Some are catchy, even though the sentiments expressed are classic left-wing. I can understand why people may enjoy some of his songs. It’s more of a stretch to imagine anyone enjoying his voice—nasal, whiny, strange.

Let’s be honest: Obama gave Dylan this award because he likes the protest movements of the 1960s and sees Dylan as a symbol of the counterculture. Obama still lives in the spirit of the 1960s; that’s where he is most at home philosophically. It reminds him of his own Marxist tutors and the influence of radical activists like Saul Alinsky.

One commentator jokingly suggested the real reason Obama thought Dylan deserved the award can be seen in light of his own autobiography, which reveals our president as a regular pot-smoker in his youth. Perhaps, the commentator noted, he really liked one of Dylan’s songs better than the rest: “Everybody Must Get Stoned.”

Sad.

If you want to know what kind of president we have—what his underlying beliefs are, and how he wants to transform this nation—all you have to do is look at his choices for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His choices diminish the meaning of that award, even as his presidency demeans the office itself.

I’ve been storing cartoons dealing with the upcoming presidential election. I think it’s time to unleash them. Some have done a fine job at showing the clear distinctions between the two candidates. Here are a couple of my favorites:

In his criticisms of Romney, Obama has tried to have it both ways. All that does is undercut his criticisms. Hopefully, hypocrisy won’t play well:

There’s been talk about Romney’s Mormonism. If you have read my ponderings for any length of time, you know I have concerns about that as well. However, we have to consider the alternative:

I agree—no matter how off-base theologically I believe Mormonism to be, there’s nothing worse than worshiping a mere mortal. Certain things have begun to be revealed about this mere mortal, things that should have been vetted in the media four years ago. What’s fascinating is the source of the revelations:

Naturally, the president wants to scrub his record clean with the voters, but he may find that task more daunting than he realizes:

May sanity return this November.

In the past week, President Obama, on the campaign trail, has tried to convince his audiences—and us as well—that he has been the most responsible spender in recent presidential history. He used as his proof an article written by someone who drew all his information from a presentation by Nancy Pelosi. Now there’s a solid source. In order to believe this spin, one has to place all 2009 spending on former President Bush. How can anyone do that? Well, since 2009 spending started under a Bush budget that began in 2008, surely it all belongs to him, right? Not when you actually look at the facts, which somehow elude our current leader. Bush never signed that budget: Obama did later. The faulty analysis also throws the stimulus bill onto Bush, even though it was an Obama enterprise from the start.

Don’t believe everything you hear from this president. In fact, don’t believe most of what you hear, especially now that the campaign is in full throttle. Let me be very clear [as Obama often says]: Obama and the Congress have added more than $5 trillion to the budget in less than four years. Bush added $4 trillion in eight years. As unadmirable as Bush’s record may be, it is the epitome of fiscal control when compared to Obama’s.

Every time Obama has sent his version of a budget to the Congress, it has been rejected unanimously—in other words, by both Republicans and Democrats:

Of course, one of the reasons the Democrat leadership has rejected Obama budgets is that it hasn’t been stellar at even considering budgets. The Senate, under Harry Reid’s leadership [?], hasn’t put forward a budget for a vote in over three years, despite a law requiring it.

So much for the concept of the rule of law.

How bad is the current fiscal situation? Here’s one way of understanding it that may bring it closer to home:

Yet what we are told about the deficit doesn’t take into account a deficit that is officially off-budget. We try to pretend it isn’t there, but it’s the biggest fiscal headache of all:

Unless something is done to deal with the root of the problem, we will become a financial basket-case. But every time someone—usually Republican—attempts to offer a plan to deal with it, Republicans are accused of wanting to throw granny off a cliff. That type of political demagoguery is not new, but at the critical juncture at which we now stand, it is particularly irresponsible.

If you’ve been a reader of my blog for some time, you know Mitt Romney was not my preferred candidate, but I now have to hope, work, and pray for his election, if for no other reason than to remove the White House’s current temporary occupant. These last four years have been a disaster in more ways than I can take the time to enumerate today. Maybe someone who understands better how economics works can make a difference.

I could have just relaxed today, put up a photo of Memorial Day, and said nothing more. But I thought instead this might be a good opportunity to provide some ponderings on the various wars in which America got involved. Perhaps this is the best way to remember those who sacrificed the most for us all. From the American Revolution to the various manifestations of the War on Terror, here is an abbreviated attempt to offer some thoughts on the goals, meanings, and accomplishments of each major conflict.

• The American Revolution. My preferred name for this war is the American War for Continued Self-Government. Why? It’s a more accurate descriptor of what took place. This was no revolution in the ordinary usage of that word. The have-nots did not rise up against the haves. Class conflict played a small role. Rather, the colonists were backed into a corner, witnessing their age-old British rights being violated. They wanted to reestablish those rights, but met with stubborn resistance from the Crown and Parliament. Declared by their king to be in rebellion and fired upon by the King’s troops attempting to remove the colonists’ store of weapons for self-defense, they felt they had no choice but to fight back. The result? They founded a nation based on a combination of Biblical principles and British constitutionalism. That successful “revolution” would serve as an inspiration to many, although most who sought to follow in its wake lacked the Biblical basis for similar success.
• The War of 1812. Another woefully misnamed war, which lasted until 1815. Americans were still being treated as a second-class nation by the British, who hadn’t left their posts in the Northwest as they had promised and who were continuing their policy of stopping American ships and “impressing” sailors into service into the British navy. This war featured a rather disorganized strategy, with too much reliance on militia than the regular army. It showcased some stunning victories at sea against the world’s greatest seapower, a humiliating loss of the nation’s capital, a resounding defense of Baltimore that gave birth to our national anthem, and a final battle at New Orleans that sealed the legitimacy of the Louisiana Purchase in the eyes of the European world. Although there was no declared winner, Americans, by virtue of that final battle, felt very much like they had won indeed.
• The Mexican War. Next to Vietnam, this is the most controversial war in our history. Mexico was not a good neighbor and manifested constant political instability, but it cannot be denied that President Polk had his eyes on more territory from the very beginning of his term. Technically, it began as a border dispute, yet it was the idea of Manifest Destiny that inspired it. The Whig Party deplored it; Congressman Abraham Lincoln disputed Polk’s rationale for the war; the nation was split on its honorable nature. When the fighting ended, America received a vast new territory. Unfortunately, that acquisition led to an attempt to spread slavery in that new territory, to fiery rhetoric on the issue, and eventually to our next war.
• The Civil War. Some prefer another name for this one, whether the War of Southern Rebellion, the War of Northern Aggression, or simply the War Between the States. Even the various preferred names reveal the divide that still haunts us today. While some insist slavery was not the cause, I believe there would have been no war without the existence of slavery. The Civil War was the most devastating of all our wars—700,000 [new estimate] died in the conflict. Over time, I have come to consider Lincoln as one of the greatest of presidents. His perspective on the war, as he tried to see it from God’s point of view, is probably accurate: the Lord allowed it due to the sins of both sides. Although devastating, it did bring an end to slavery and the country eventually united in action. And even though scars remain, we eventually became one people again.
• Spanish-American War. This war began on a false premise—the Spanish blew up our ship in Havana harbor. However, it was the best-informed opinion at the time, and I don’t hold it against McKinley for concluding something had to be done. The Cubans had been calling for us to help them for decades. Next to WWII, this is probably the most altruistic war in American history. The citizenry rallied to free Cuba from Spanish control. It lasted only ten weeks and the goal was achieved. Unforeseen results were the acquisition of Puerto Rico and the Philippines as the Spanish retreated from being an empire. This led to a guerrilla war in the Philippines for a few years, but eventually peace reigned there, the Filipinos received self-government under U.S. supervision, then finally their independence. The American “empire,” if that’s even the proper term, was one of the best in human history.
• World War I. We were very reluctant to get involved in a European war. But when the Germans unleashed unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking more American ships, and when they tried to get Mexico to attack us in a strategy to keep us distracted, we finally declared war. American participation lasted only one and a half years, but the flood of American soldiers to the front turned the tide. The promises made by President Wilson were unfounded—The War to End All Wars—and disillusion with the results led to a strong sense that we should never do this again. Progressives used the war to put the federal government in control of most American businesses. Once the war ended, we reversed that policy, once again pledging we would never do it again.
• World War II. No major controversy here—nearly all Americans agreed we had to respond to the attack at Pearl Harbor. Then when Hitler declared war on us, we had a two-front war without seeking it. The goal was to dismantle the regimes that sought world domination. That goal was achieved. The price was high, with over 400,000 dead. America also emerged from this war as the leader of the Free World, with new and heavy responsibilities. Those responsibilities became more onerous as the Soviet Union set up a rival empire with the stated goal of ushering in the age of universal communism. Our defense of freedom became known as the Cold War.
• The Korean War. This conflict was the first to arise out of the new Cold War. While technically a United Nations action, the U.S. was clearly in command of the strategy, and we provided most of the troops. The Communist North invaded the South; we defended the South and pushed those troops back into the North. It ended with a truce, a stalemate actually, and we still have troops stationed at the border between the two nations. North Korea has become a major threat to stability and has been characterized as one of the Axis of Evil. We were right to defend the South; the decision to return to the status quo rather than win the war remains a source of controversy to this day.
• The Vietnam War. Easily the most divisive war of the twentieth century, we had a reasonable rationale for getting involved: stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. Fine goal, but questionable strategy. There are many ways to critique how this war was prosecuted, but suffice to say it led to the demise of the LBJ presidency. When Nixon took over, he eventually ended the active hostilities with a peace agreement, but the decision by Congress to cut off aid to South Vietnam and the problems of Watergate allowed the North to resume the war, this time with success as it overran the South. I consider this the saddest of all American wars. Our loss of life, over 55,000, ended with communism taking over the entire country. Our soldiers were not treated as heroes, as in other wars, and it took far too long for their sacrifices to be honored.
• The Persian Gulf War. I have no problem with this war’s aims: get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and corral him so he wouldn’t be a threat to the entire region. The first President Bush cobbled together a coalition of nations that did just that. Yet we didn’t follow through and took on the immense task of overseeing Saddam’s compliance with U.N. resolutions. Iraq became a festering sore that had to be dealt with eventually.
• The War on Terror. Iraq and Afghanistan are the centers of this conflict, but in reality it knows no boundaries. Neither can we know at the present time how winnable this war may be; controversy centers on whether we should be out there prosecuting it or hunkering down behind fortress America. Strategies and tactics are an ongoing debate, but one thing is certain: soldiers are still laying down their lives and should be honored for their commitment. This is a war that must be won; let there be no doubt on that score.

On this day, I honor those who have given their all. As a Christian, I don’t seek war with anyone, but there is nothing Biblical about allowing tyrants, terrorists, and ego-inflated dictators to run roughshod over those who want to live in peace. We have an obligation to defend ourselves and work for the greater good. There will be wars and rumors of wars until the end of this age. While they are being fought, let’s remember those on the front lines.

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

A good man will obtain favor from the Lord, but He will condemn a man who devises evil. A man will not be established by wickedness, but the root of the righteous will not be moved.

A man will be praised according to his insight, but one of perverse mind will be despised.

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel.

There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Truthful lips will be established forever, but a lying tongue is only for a moment.

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal faithfully are His delight.

In the way of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death.

The Gallup organization has just released its newest survey of Americans’ moral values. One needs to look no further than this survey to comprehend why our culture is changing. I know people may be tired of hearing Christians bemoan the state of morality in society, but from a Biblical perspective, it’s obvious we’re in deep trouble, and this could signify the death of our society eventually. Here are the highlights:

• The survey shows that 52% of Americans now find homosexual relations as morally acceptable. This is why taking a strong stance against homosexuality elicits such politically correct outrage. I also heard this week that another poll indicates this number has risen since the president verbalized his support for same-sex marriage. Whenever civil government takes sides on an issue, it can also influence the culture. In this case, those who are morally confused find solace in accepting the new morality because the government says it’s okay.
• Sex outside of marriage is just fine say 59% of our fellow citizens. Well, why not? If you follow the cultural trend as showcased in the movies and television programs, it’s simply a fact of life. Rarely do you see anyone resisting sex at any time with anyone prior to marriage. I remember when dating didn’t used to be associated with an active sex life. It used to be, well . . . dating. Now the assumption is that dating is inextricably linked with sexual relations, and that it would be “puritanical/Victorian” to believe otherwise.
• How about having a baby outside of marriage? The stigma for that has nearly disappeared with 54% not finding anything wrong with it. Yet the bad effects of absentee fathers is well documented. About 70% of all children born in the inner cities are without fathers. How’s that working out?
• Remember when doctor-assisted suicide was endorsed only by the likes of Jack Kevorkian? Now 46% of Americans see no problem with it. This is moving us slowly toward acceptance of euthanasia.
• Stem-cell research from human embryos finds support from 59%. This is distinguished from overall stem-cell research, which is becoming increasingly successful using adult stem cells. In spite of that, 3 of 5 Americans don’t object to harvesting unborn children for their stem cells, even though there’s no need to do so scientifically. This whole argument for using embryonic stem cells has always been a cover for promoting abortion.
• So this leads logically to the statistics on the moral acceptability of abortion. How are we faring on that issue? This is one of the brighter spots of the survey, which indicates a trend against viewing abortion as moral. Only 38% say they favor abortion. That’s certainly movement in the right direction, while we seem to be drifting away from Biblical standards in other areas. Yet it’s still sobering to realize that nearly 4 of 10 Americans don’t find the taking of innocent human life as repugnant.
• Fully 69% find divorce to be moral. There are some gray areas here. I do believe there are some Scriptural grounds for legitimate divorce, but I know most of those surveyed aren’t taking Scripture into consideration. They just like the idea of an easy path to break a vow. Again, we are experiencing the sad effects of this lax approach to what should be a lifelong commitment.
• There’s another category that should help balance most of this sorry list, but I’m afraid it’s not what it appears to be. It should be encouraging to discover that only 6% of Americans believe it’s okay to have an extramarital affair, but here’s where we find a dichotomy between what people say and what they do. While 92% indicate they believe this is wrong, there’s a large segment of that 92% that violates what it says it believes. Hypocrisy is another factor in our moral degeneration as a people.

Government is not the solution to this current state of affairs. All government can do is try to set moral boundaries. If people, by and large, don’t believe in those boundaries, no law will suffice. That means it all comes back to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only the good news about how to restore our broken relationship with God can bring people out of moral darkness and into His light. Our primary task remains: teach and model Biblical truth.

I wouldn’t blame you if you’ve missed a couple of really big stories lately. The reason you may have missed them is that they have rarely been mentioned in the mainstream media. The first is a potential constitutional earthquake. Reporters who say they are devoted to the First Amendment for its free-speech protections are strangely silent when it comes to religious freedom, particularly when their beloved Obamacare and “right-to-choose-abortion” beliefs may be smacked down.

Forty-three Catholic agencies have initiated lawsuits against the Obamacare mandate that they violate their religious beliefs by offering both contraceptive and abortifacient drugs to employees—and to students in the case of colleges.

If they can win these cases, religious liberty will continue to be protected. If not . . . well, you be the judge.

Then there is the embarrassing story that is developing in the Democrat primaries. Are you even aware there are Democrat primaries? They haven’t been a matter of news before now since the president has no formal opponent. Yet, in the West Virginia primary a convicted felon received 40% of the vote, in Arkansas, an unknown on the ballot also got about 40%, and in Kentucky, with no one else on the ballot but Obama, the “undecided” choice on the ticket received 40% as well. Does that sound like a Democrat electorate that is solidly behind reelection? Maybe they’ve been contemplating their leader’s real record:

This is no threat to Obama’s renomination, but it’s an early signal of what he may face in the general election. At least, that is my hope.