Scott Walker’s victory yesterday in the Wisconsin governor’s recall election was a triumph for common sense. Walker, a genuine Christian man who walked out his convictions—doing what he said he would do when he was first elected—had to endure a year and a half of death threats, massive rallies, an “occupy movement,” if you will, of the Wisconsin State House, and an attempt to oust him from office, not for any misdeeds or corruption, but simply for disagreement over policy.

Let’s review what the beef was, as well as how Walker’s reforms have played out in the state. One of the biggest problems Wisconsin faces is its own semi-radical history. It was the first state, in 1959, to allow collective bargaining for public employees. As Baby Boomers began retiring, the pensions owed to them via this bargaining brought the state to the edge of financial ruin. Walker merely sought to curb this out-of-control union power. The unions reacted vociferously, and with the aid of Democrat legislators who fled the state to try to forestall the changes [now there's a model of good governance if ever there was one], they have dragged out this battle for what seems like forever.

Walker and the Republican majority in the legislature—put there by the people in 2010—fulfilled their promises to the electorate despite the threats and a nationwide effort to defeat a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge in another election. They failed. So then they turned their guns on Walker directly, along with his lieutenant governor. Again, a national juggernaut was created, led by the big unions in cooperation with the Democrat party. They have now failed again.

It’s a little hard to convince most state citizens to remove a man from office who has spearheaded reforms that appear to be working. Let me quote one commentator from Forbes who has summarized the results nicely:

The state budget has been balanced. The unemployment rate has been dropping and is now below the national average. Property taxes are down. Fraudulent sick leave policies—which allowed employees to call in sick and then work the next shift for overtime pay—have been ended. The government has stopped forcibly collecting union dues from workers’ paychecks. Best of all, the myth that union bosses represent their members’ interests has been exposed as a lie. Now that union dues are voluntary, tens of thousands of union members have stopped paying them. Membership in the Wisconsin chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) has dropped by half. Membership in the state’s American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is down by over a third.

In other words, fiscal health and sanity have returned. All this, and public employees still have benefits that are 22% above the private sector. That’s hardly draconian. No wonder voters turned down the recall.

Why would anyone of sound mind desire to return to the former state of affairs?

What does this election mean for the bigger picture? It could mean Wisconsin is in play for Republicans in the presidential election. A state that put Republicans in the majority in 2010, and which has reaffirmed that choice just now, may be ready to switch political columns. Did you notice that President Obama avoided going to Wisconsin during this time? His people knew it was a losing proposition; they didn’t want his image saddled with another loss. One can only hope this Wisconsin election is a portent of what we will see in November.

Forty-three organizations, mostly Catholic, have sued the federal government over the HHS regulations in Obamacare that would force them to violate their religious beliefs. Some people don’t care because they view this as a birth control issue, they are secular, and they consider the Catholic church to be positively medieval in its strictures against birth control. Others, among them Protestant Christians, are tempted to stay on the sidelines because they don’t agree with the church’s stance on the issue and they’re not Catholic.

Those Protestants need to beware. It won’t stop with Catholic doctrine. The juggernaut of state control of religious beliefs will encompass them sooner or later. Actually, the time is now. I teach at a Protestant university. Those regulations may tell us to offer abortifacient drugs, which would be against our doctrinal beliefs. Catholics, Protestants, and anyone else concerned about the survival of religious liberty in this nation ought to be on the alert and standing against this policy.

You would think a First Amendment case of this import would be receiving a lot of publicity. However, as usual, the president’s supporters in the mainstream media are doing their best to minimize coverage. Even when they do cover it, they will twist it into a birth control debate, knowing that most Americans will be on their side and will miss the real threat.

Amazingly, while this serious case is going forward, the media finds the antics of the pope’s butler more significant. I wasn’t sure what I thought of the following cartoon when it came out—not sure I would share it because I thought it might be slightly blasphemous. But upon further consideration, I concluded it truly makes its point, and I don’t think the Lord minds.

This is the equivalent of the Biblical warning about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

So what’s the president’s response thus far?

Well, not precisely. But I do believe if he wins reelection, what has transpired already will seem tame compared to what will follow after. Those of us with religious convictions are on his radar—we are targets.

There has been criticism lately from both Left and Right over President Obama’s policy of selecting terrorists to kill in drone strikes. I may surprise some of you by offering a qualified endorsement of that policy. We are at war against terrorism, even if some in the administration would like to have us believe that war is over. A president does have the responsibility as commander in chief during a war to take out the enemy. Yes, I know we haven’t made an official declaration of war; that should be done. But Americans’ safety is the overall concern.

The critique from the Right, though, has been the manner in which this is carried out, along with the loss of valuable intelligence. If we kill all terrorists, we don’t have the opportunity to interrogate them for what they know. That has proven invaluable in recent years. The Obama approach wipes out not only the terrorist, but any chance of extracting more significant information that could lead to taking down an entire network. Also, his method of micromanaging the so-called “kill list” is eerily reminiscent of LBJ’s handling of Vietnam. That went well, didn’t it? And then there’s the collateral damage of relying almost exclusively on drone strikes—the innocent may die along with the guilty. I’m not saying the drones shouldn’t be used, but there are other factors this president apparently isn’t taking into consideration.

By the way, I got a sneak peak at the new Obama Kill List. You may find this fascinating:

By this standard, he’s been remarkably successful. If you don’t think so, let him explain:

That’s a pretty optimistic self-assessment. Here’s another one closer to reality:

Many Democrats are nervous. They have spoken out against Obama’s attacks on genuine capitalism that creates jobs. Meanwhile, his own policies have led to the highest unemployment and lowest productivity at a sustained pace since the Great Depression. Yet you don’t find any in his party willing to say he should step aside in favor of his vice president, now do you? Wonder why?

The last four years have been a national nightmare. Perhaps in five months we’ll awaken once again.

A righteous man hates falsehood, but a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully. Righteousness guards the one whose way is blameless, but wickedness subverts the sinner.

Through insolence comes nothing but strife, but wisdom is with those who receive counsel.

The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, but the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, to turn aside from the snares of death.

He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.

I have two related items today. Both say a lot about the culture of death in our society and the participation of Planned Parenthood, President Obama, and congressional Democrats in that culture. These stories no longer shock, but they are revelatory nonetheless.

One organization, Live Action, has been very successful in exposing Planned Parenthood’s worldview and activities. Live Action has taken video cameras into Planned Parenthood offices and caught personnel making outrageous statements. It happened again this week. A pregnant woman associated with Live Action went into a PP office and asked for an ultrasound. The purported reason? She wanted a boy, she said, and if the ultrasound showed a girl, she would go ahead with an abortion. The PP employee saw no problem with that and never tried to convince her otherwise.

This goes beyond mere abortion [as if there is anything "mere" about it---ever] and allows the decision to be made based on the gender of the unborn child. It’s called sex-selection abortion, and it’s one step closer to the nihilist state. A better term would be “gendercide.” Abortion itself is the taking of innocent life; gendercide makes that despicable action even worse.

The publicity generated by this incident led Planned Parenthood to dismiss the employee and simply say she was “rogue.” That’s what they say every time they are exposed. Other employees in previous stings were apparently “rogue” also and were fired. At what point, though, does “rogue” describe the organization itself? What we are seeing is the scapegoating of individuals who have been caught being faithful to the Planned Parenthood agenda.

Item #2: Live Action has been coordinating with Republicans in Congress to try to do something about Planned Parenthood’s baneful influence on our culture, and to ensure that all federal funding to this organization is cut off. Republican leaders in the House scheduled a vote yesterday for a bill that would ban gender selection in abortions. Immediately, Planned Parenthood raised the alarm, and its political allies rallied to its side. President Obama came out against the bill; then when the vote was taken, all but twenty Democrats refused to support the ban on gendercide.

The bill did get a majority, but it needed 2/3 of the House to approve because it was brought to the floor under a rule that limited debate. I don’t know the entire rationale for taking this route with the bill, but even if it was for political purposes, it was successful in that respect. It put the entire Democrat party on the side of sex-selection abortion.

As Republicans pointed out, Democrats have trumped up a “War on Women,” and have accused Republicans of waging it. But what could be more of a war on women than an abortion policy straight out of communist China, where this kind of selection already is allowed, with unborn girls as the target. Who’s waging the real war on women?

The lines are clearly drawn in this battle for life. If you say you are a Christian and you support the Democrat party, I would hope you would stop and think about those with whom you have chosen to ally in politics. Do you really agree with sinful actions such as this? Does gendercide reflect the heart of God?