The scandals continue apace, and it doesn’t seem as if they’re going away soon. A new one was added on in the past couple of days. More on that later. But first, let’s update what we know. Well, keep in mind the only reason we know anything is because whistleblowers and some reporters who still cling to the old idea of ferreting out the facts have overcome the fear of White House retaliation and come forward to present their evidence. If it were up to the White House and the various executive departments it oversees, we would remain in the dark. They want you to believe they are clueless about any wrongdoing, yet should receive total credit for anything that goes right:

At the almost-daily press briefings and on news shows, members representing the administration have one talking point only:

On Benghazi, we haven’t heard as much in the last few days, but it’s still bubbling under the surface. Rumors are that more whistleblowers are about to tell their tales. That can’t be good for those who may have tried to put a cone of silence over their testimony:

One commentator, Andy McCarthy, reminds us of an overlooked part of the Benghazi timeline: President Obama and Hillary Clinton had a 10:00 p.m. phone call the night of the attack, which was just after receiving news that our ambassador had been killed. The next day the false story about the anti-Islam video became the “explanation” for the attack. Coincidence?

We also know now that the administration has identified at least five individuals in Libya who were responsible for carrying out the attack, but have done nothing to get them. Apparently, they are waiting until there is enough “evidence” to try them in a civilian court. Again, this betrays the administration’s worldview. Obama and his people, especially Eric Holder at the Justice Department, believe foreign terrorists are entitled to all the legal protections of American citizens. Wrong.

The IRS scandal currently dominates most of the news cycle for the scandals. I think that has something to do with how every citizen feels about that particular agency. We all know it can come after each one of us individually. There’s not a whole lot love there. And even though we’re told it’s not a partisan agency, facts seem to indicate otherwise:

We also now know that on March 31, 2010, President Obama met with the anti-Tea Party IRS union chief at the White House. The very next day the “jihad” against Tea Party and other conservative organizations began. Another coincidence?

Tea Parties across the nation held rallies yesterday outside IRS offices, protesting the unfair and illegal treatment they have received at its hands. The main person responsible for that treatment, Lois Lerner, is supposed to appear today before one of the congressional committees investigating the scandal. The word is that she has decided to take the Fifth Amendment, which is a little peculiar for someone who claims she has done nothing wrong. Now, I realize the Fifth Amendment is there to protect against incriminating oneself, but one has to wonder what she has to hide—or who else she might be protecting. What promises have been made to her to secure her silence? In the law, a prosecutor must provide evidence for a conviction, so taking the Fifth is an established practice; we are told not to consider anyone guilty until proven so. However, this is not yet a legal court case where those standards exist. There’s another court, that of public opinion, and we are free to believe what we wish about this tactic being used at this point.

Another reason to be concerned about how the IRS handles its business is that it is slated to oversee the implementation of Obamacare, a law frightening enough in itself, even before the IRS is attached to it:

This whole thing has taken on monstrous proportions. How long will American citizens put up with it?

The tapping of the phones of the Associated Press is now an old story compared to recent revelations. Obama has never liked Fox News. Now we know, for a fact, that this organization also has been the subject of scrutiny. It started with the exposure of the Justice Department secretly reading the e-mails of James Rosen, one of Fox’s reporters. Rosen was merely doing what all reporters do—trying to find out information on a story. In this case, it had to do with the North Korea nuclear program. Something about that ticked off the powers-that-be. The DOJ somewhere found a judge who signed off on the secret reading of Rosen’s e-mails because he was called a “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation.

This jarring news sent a chill through the entire press. Never in the history of this country, except perhaps after the passage of the Sedition Act of 1798, has a member of the press been accused formally of criminal activity simply for pursuing information. Then it came out that the DOJ had targeted other Fox employees as well; a further revelation is that the department also tapped into Fox phone lines. This is unprecedented.

But don’t worry. We’re told the president is a great supporter of the First Amendment. All we have to fear is fear itself.

This is a tyranny in the making. It needs to be stopped. Let the investigations proceed.

President Obama yesterday put forward his executive orders for curbing gun violence. There were twenty-three of them. I read through all twenty-three carefully. While I’m somewhat relieved that he didn’t go beyond the regular misuse of such executive orders—no sweeping new mandates this time—he nevertheless stepped over the constitutional boundary that separates the executive from the legislative. His orders, while not establishing new laws, which would be unconstitutional in itself, still added new spending in the billions. Unless that money already was authorized by Congress, he unilaterally contributed to the growing debt burden of the country. Historically speaking, I’ve seen this before:

No, Mr. President, you are not the state. You are merely the one charged with the responsibility of carrying out the executive functions of the state in conjunction with a duly elected Congress and an independent judiciary. Neither do you have the authority to change the Constitution; only an amendment can do that. My dread over what he might do in the current situation is based on what he already has done. The HHS mandates via Obamacare have trampled on the First Amendment’s religious liberty guarantees. If he’s willing to do that, the Second Amendment guarantees won’t faze him either. A couple of cartoonists have captured that concern pretty well:

Many critics of the president have been quick to point out the hypocrisy of his pronouncements on the gun control issue:

And that comment Joe Biden made about curtailing guns to save even one life sounds a little silly if you carry out the logic to its natural end:

The government cannot protect every person at all times. Life comes with risks. If the government tries to achieve that goal, it will cost more lives in the long run when individuals are not allowed to defend themselves effectively against those who seek to do them harm.

For me, the greatest hypocrisy that came to the forefront yesterday was Obama’s use of children at his public signing of those executive orders. Supposedly, this is all for the sake of saving children. Yet his heart is hardened and his conscience seared when it comes to the most unprotected, innocent children of all:

When Obama changes his position on abortion and begins to protect those who need protection the most, then I’ll begin to have some respect for him.

I noted yesterday that I don’t really believe those polls showing the president to be far ahead of Romney. I believe they are bogus, constructed with skewed samples. However, it cannot be denied that this race is either tied or Obama is slightly ahead. Considering the damage he has done to the country during his tenure, the fact that he could even be in the running is disturbing. It’s a warning signal for us as a people. What have we become?

I’ve spent countless hours over the past three-plus years attempting to show how he has led us to cliffs both moral and financial. Lately, his foreign policy has come to the forefront: his disdain for Israel, sympathy for Islam, and utter cluelessness with respect to the true nature of our enemies. I question whether he can even identify our enemies.

We now know that within twenty-four hours of the attack on our consulate in Libya and the murder of our ambassador there that the administration had all the intel it needed to conclude this was a terrorist attack associated with Al Qaeda. Yet Obama sent out his UN ambassador, Susan Rice, to all the Sunday talk shows to declare unequivocally there was no terrorism involved. This was all born of a horrible video about the prophet Muhammed, we were told. It took many days for anyone in the administration to say otherwise; Obama himself still hasn’t been able to articulate the “new” perspective. In his speech to the UN earlier this week, his focus was once again on the video and how it was the real cause of the inflamed passions in the Muslim world.

In Obamaworld, one cannot criticize Islam. He will feign commitment to the First Amendment right to free speech while simultaneously seek to punish those who exercise it in areas where he disagrees.

If anyone wonders why he is doing this, all you have to consider is that it’s campaign season. He doesn’t want anything to rock his world as he goes “forward.” Surely his outreach to the Muslim world has worked, right? He has reset our bad relations with other countries, correct? He is the anti-Bush, so everyone now loves us. The reality upsets his paradigm. And when it comes to dealing with the reality, he is still voting “present,” which was his favorite vote as a state senator. He really is the empty chair Clint Eastwood mocked:

Yet the only way most of the electorate will know about these failures and lies is to watch Fox News or other alternative internet sources. The mainstream media, both on television and in print, ignore his failures. They are on his side and are working actively for his reelection.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney can be slandered mercilessly without the media objecting, although I have to give credit to one media person who did ask the president if any of his campaign ads might cross a line. His response?

I’m sure he’ll now correct those misperceptions and deal honestly with Romney’s real record. Keep watching.

If this president is reelected, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. It will reveal once and for all the spiritual poverty that dominates in our nation. At root, this is a spiritual crisis. Our problems, whether economic, moral, or in foreign relations, all stem from our rejection of the Biblical worldview. Electing Mitt Romney doesn’t solve our deeper problem, but it at least will give us a chance to regroup; it will be a second chance. We have to pray for God to be merciful to a people who don’t deserve His mercy. Fortunately for us, His nature is to show mercy whenever He can. May He do so again. May we have that second chance.

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.

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.

The Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide healthcare services that violate their beliefs is more serious than most people realize. The focus has been on Catholics and contraceptives, but that’s only the beginning. Since the country as a whole doesn’t hold to the no-contraception doctrine of the Catholic church, the outrage is somewhat muted. What many don’t understand is that it is merely the opening salvo for a full-scale attack on Christianity. Note I said “Christianity,” not religion, because that’s where this administration is headed. Obama can claim all he wants that he is a Christian—and he’s suddenly doing so quite often—but he’s no more a Christian than Bill Maher or Jon Stewart, his ideological allies.

I was surprised, but encouraged, to see some statements from evangelical leaders this week that have taken this threat to heart. They are strong statements, such as this one from Chuck Colson:

We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change in circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government. That would break my heart as a former Marine Captain loving my country, but I love my God more. I’ve made up my mind—sober as that decision would have to be—that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me.

Then there’s this Twitter comment from Rick Warren, who, you might remember, gave the invocation at Obama’s inauguration:

I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers and sisters to practice their belief against government pressure. I’d rather go to jail than cave in to a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you?

Baptist leader Richard Land added:

The Obama administration has declared war on religion and freedom of conscience. This must not stand. Our Baptist forebears died and went to prison to secure these freedoms. It is now our calling to stand in the gap and defend our priceless First Amendment religious freedoms.

I agree with these leaders. As the apostle Peter said, “We must obey God rather than men.” And we must never put the government in the place of God. Nor can we accord any leader that status.

Our president’s megalomania is already beyond the pale. No matter how many anthems of praise for him that school children are coerced into singing, he’s just a fallen, flawed man. In fact, more flawed than most.

President Obama’s switch to hitting the insurance companies directly for mandatory coverage of birth control [even abortifacients] is supposed to be an “accommodation” to the religious organizations who were upset over his unprecedented move to force them to provide the birth control. It’s just the old strategy of smoke and mirrors. Those organizations would still be offering the coverage in their plans, thereby violating their religious beliefs. The First Amendment is still being ignored under the supposed accommodation. Further, this means the president is dictating to insurance companies what they need to offer—still an unconstitutional power grab via Obamacare.

Why all this emphasis on providing birth control anyway? It’s not like it’s so unaffordable if one wants to make use of the methods. Insurance ought to be for the major costs of healthcare, not for everyday minor costs. Yet Obama decides to risk his political capital by forcing this issue. What’s behind this move?

It’s politically foolish. Perhaps he’ll have to come to grips with that:

Speaking of his “fundamental principles,” such as they are:

While I don’t agree with his desire to stifle political speech and override the First Amendment by limiting the amount of money one can spend [as long as all donations are made public], if he really believes what he says he does, he ought to at least be consistent with his beliefs, as inconvenient as they may be to his reelection efforts.