www site     

Link to us   
HomeStoreAboutTotal TruthBlogContactDonateSpeakingArchives
pro-existence banner no. 2 black by Rick and Nancy Pearcey.jpg

Results matching “it's a girl”

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

We the Tea Partiers vs. the Dogs of Obama

By Rick Pearcey • April 21, 2010, 08:02 AM

The formerly mainstream media and the formerly mainstream Democrat Party are worried that uppity American citizens are not shutting up, sitting down, and otherwise allowing Barack Hussein Obama to impose his unconstitutional and anti-Declaration agenda upon their lives, their familes, and their futures.  

It's a tea party you see, and as every government school boy and girl knows, it's impolite to talk about freedom at tea parties.

Well, my friends, neighbors, and tea partiers, in "Who Let the Dogs Out?," Cindy Simpson at American Thinker spots enough hypocrisy among the formerly mainstreamers to feed an army of bloodhounds. She writes:  

Enough of the hypocritical attempts of the mainstream media and Democrats to muzzle the Tea Partiers and Republicans who openly reject this administration's policies.

Had a look a Obama's "million-mouthed dog" lately? That was the description given to David Plouffe's (Obama's campaign manager) "Organizing for America" creation in an Esquire feature last year.

In fact, human beings are not created to slavishly obey government or submit to the teleprompter techniques of political marketing programs.

Rather, our calling under God (see the Declaration of Independence, etc.)  is to speak out and otherwise resist the idolatry of government and the idolatry of pretend messiahs and their regressive, reactionary disciples in politics and media. 

And speaking of dogs and government, it may be time for "We the People" to remind the feds who is master and who is servant. Any government that does not sit, lie down, roll over, or heel at the command of "We the People," under God, is due for a little obdedience training.

Isn't that what Jefferson said? A little obedience training, now and then, is a good thing.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Preacher: TVs, Bicycles, Cars for Church Attendance "Not Really a Bribe"

By Rick Pearcey • April 1, 2010, 10:02 AM

"A Texas pastor is offering more than $2 million worth of giveaways to people who attend Easter worship services this Sunday," reports AP.

According to AP: 

Rev. Bil Cornelius is senior pastor of Bay Area Fellowship Church, which meets at seven locations in and around Corpus Christi. He says every individual or family will receive $300 in gift certificates from local businesses, and drawings will be held at every service to give away cars, flat-screen TVs, laptop computers, and furniture. . . .

"It's really not a bribe," [Cornelius] explains. "It's more of a giant illustration."

In Other Words, Gimme That Old Time Marketing: If you can just out-Oprah Oprah (known for her giveaways), then Christianity must be true, worthy of commitment, people will come to your show, and the gospel of giveaways shall be preached unto the ends of the earth. 

And, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, the inside word at "Spirit Buzz" has it that next week the Church of Ed Sullivan will present The Senior Men's Choir rapping their latest hit, "Jesus Is My Girlfriend." (By the way, 780,000 souls made "decisions for Christ" during the Senior Men's most recent 3-week tour around the world, as indicated by increased mailing lists and other fundraising dynamics.)

Plus: A famed radio and Christian worldview "thinker" with a stirring life story will personally share how you can have your very own quiet times with him. That's right. Join in as he reads via Jumbotron from "his" newest book (the 38th from this gifted modern prophet who has talked -- and prayed -- with the president), written by a well-paid, dedicated staff mining work done by contract writers over the years, other conference speakers who need him to help sell their books, and by others you've never heard of and never will (as the Lord blesses).

And, my friends, don't believe all those distractions about evangelicals all too comfortable with President George W. Bush to critique him biblically and thereby helping open the door to King Barack Obama of the Church of the Living Constitution. Yes, my nuanced friends, kill two birds with one stone: Resist Satanic distractions and get a free book in the presence of a humble Christan celebrity author (so to speak).

And remember: It's not a bribe, it's not fleshly marketing, and it's "not aping the world." We're too sincere for that, and maybe doubters ought to reexamine their prayer life and generally get onboard with the program. Lest we have a problem.

Please check Comcast or your local cable provider for service times and broadcasts directly into the loving convenience of your very own livingroom.

Francis Schaeffer, the Religious Right, Cultural Decline, and Aping the World

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Obama Spurns Merkel Over Berlin Wall; Maybe Palin, Bachmann Should Go

By Rick Pearcey • November 4, 2009, 01:34 PM

No Berlin Obama: "In his first year in office," notes Rich Lowry of National Review, "Barack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He's touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (eleven). It's an itinerary befitting a 'citizen of the world.'

"But there's one stop Obama won't make," says Lowry. "He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. His schedule is reportedly too crowded."

Too crowded? How so?

Perhaps, in addition to an understandably hectic schedule, the radical U.S. president is too busy shredding the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence to celebrate the victory of freedom over tyranny that is so well symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. Think Obamacare, think "stimulus," think politicians on Capitol Hill moving their lips.

But this hubris is opportunity for hope.

Might there be some in America who appreciate the Founders' concept of freedom under God as a superior worldview to "fairness" and "equality" under an all-powerful "compassionate" state?

Why not make it an all-girls affair? Let Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann join German president Angela Merkel in Berlin. Surely, they'd have something to talk about. After all, old adversaries of freedom remain at large. And new ones are afoot in the land, just now trying to get their footing, just now digging their claws into the flesh of freedom.

Another reason to celebrate yesterday's electoral rebuke of Obama, the man not in Berlin.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Perez Hilton: Foul Face of "Gay" Activism

By Rick Pearcey • April 24, 2009, 09:47 AM

The following column is by Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Barber also co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. Brackets and ellipsis below indicate an editorial effort to keep Pro-Existence a family-friendly source of comment and analysis, an increasingly challenging proposition, given the rise of anti-family forces of secuarism and intolerance in the land, exemplified of late by a judge with the Miss USA pageant. 

You may have heard. During Sunday’s Miss USA pageant openly “gay” activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton -- the self-styled “Queen of Media” -- ambushed Carrie Prejean -- the openly Christian Miss California -- with a politically loaded question on so-called “same-sex marriage.” Prejean’s candid answer -- as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted -- likely cost her the crown. 

From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class.  Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.  

This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media’s fabricated flap over Prejean’s answer -- a public defense of legitimate marriage -- has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez -- which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70% of Americans -- but, rather, because of Hilton’s hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media, and organized homosexuality. 

After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage,” Prejean responded: “In my country, in my family . . . I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be  -- between a man and a woman.”

Oh the humanity!

Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n’-fruity answer Hilton -- the creepy valley girl wannabe with a five o’clock shadow -- had hoped for. He promptly marked Prejean’s score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras and began blubbering away like a fussy little snot with a dirty diaper. 

Having already publicly called Prejean a “dumb b----,” he then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC that not only was he refusing to apologize he was actually “thinking the C-word.” This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task for the boy lover’s girl-hating poison, O’Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.    

But Hilton wasn’t done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, our lispy-wispy lil’ cupcake dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore. He defaced a photo of Prejean on his weblog scribbling . . . a crude depiction of [male anatomy].

How did Prejean react?

While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show she said, “I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. . . . I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”

On the Fox News Channel’s Hannity program, Prejean shared, “You know, I forgive him. I know that he's angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life.”

Like I said -- Class.  

Still, Perez Hilton -- Hollywood’s frothy-potty-mouthed little drama queen -- isn’t alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of “gay marriage.”   

For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton’s anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia-old recognition of biblical marriage “was divisive.” Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70% of Americans who oppose “gay marriage” as “bigots.” 

This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist “queer” activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” are the most intolerant and hateful among us. 

How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to “gay” activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters. 

So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they’re doing the other 70% of us a favor. In their biting anger, they’ve cast aside the sublime mask of “tolerance,” revealing an ugly, desperate and most intolerant countenance below.   

For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.

Beauty and the Beast: Resisting the Reactionary Extremism of Perez Hilton
Miss California: "God Was Testing My Faith"
Open Lesbian, CNN Anchor, Defends Miss America Judge
Anderson Cooper and the Crisis of Journalism

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Miss California: "God Was Testing My Faith"

By Rick Pearcey • April 21, 2009, 09:10 AM

Her affirmation of the Creator's objective, verifiable, public, and liberating norm for married life in reply to a homosexual "marriage" question from judge Perez Hilton helped make Carrie Prejean the "most famous runner-up in Miss USA history."

But what was that blonde girl thinking?

There she was . . . publicly proclaiming foundational moral truth about marriage. So tyrannical.

There she was . . . taking a social stand that places her at the philosophical center of the American experiment in liberty and unalienable rights under God. So extreme.

There she was . . . daring to resist mass-marketed peer pressure and the unbending demands of tolerance. So rebellious.  

In all fairness, let us ask: Who does the uppity individual Miss Prejean think she is, brazenly resisting the secularist status quo?

And for all we know she's pro-life. That would fit the profile. Speaking of profiles, that "Right-Wing Extremism" report from the Department of Homeland Security, headed up by Janet Napolitano, couldn't have been more timely. 

Who now can doubt that the American people need to be educated and prepared to allow the federal government to deal with blonde bombshells, free-thinking individuals, constitutionalists, and other potential terrorists at large in the forward-looking land of change?

It's no accident: Only last week we had those Tea Parties. And now this pageant. Who knows what might be coming down the pike?

Yes, there is much to consider in the defense of America. Meanwhile, here's an exclusive interview with Carrie Prejean at FoxNews.com. 

Friday, March 13, 2009

Radical Rules for Girl Scouts' Birthday

By Rick Pearcey • March 13, 2009, 03:13 PM

The Girl Scouts turned 97 yesterday, but "there is not much to celebrate," says columnist Jane Chastain. "Membership is down. Cookie sales have dwindled, and they are floundering around trying to be relevant."

"Trying to be relevant," as in:

Yes, the GSUSA is dumping the "dorky" vests and "singalongs" around the campfire (the words of others, not my own) in an effort to be "cool" and "edgy." It's sad, really, like a senior citizen shopping for a bikini and getting a tattoo in an effort to be noticed.

Individual achievement and earning badges are out. Political correctness and self-esteem are in. Girls still will have an opportunity to earn badges -- for now -- but the emphasis is on the new Journeys programs, which focus on broad themes and encourage "groupthink."

Mothers, who "have traditionally been the backbone of scouting," are also on the outs:

Moms . . . have served as mentors and troop leaders, chauffeurs, fundraisers and organizers. Today, moms are being told to take a hike when their daughters become teenagers. Yes, moms are to be replaced at the most critical time in a girl's life with young adults or others judged to be suitably "hip" and trained by groups like the Ashland Institute who will lead their daughters down the garden path toward the New Age.

And "God" gets the "asterisk" treatment:

In 1993, God was reduced to an asterisk in the Girl Scout Promise. Sure, the Creator can still come along on these Journeys if a scout so desires, providing the great I AM can tolerate the moral relativism that permeates these programs.

What does this mean?

It means: Someone is celebrating.

The secularist. The socialist. The relativist. The feminist. And maybe a president.

A decline in membership and cookie sales is small price to pay to convert and thereby neutralize an organization that might stand in the way of radically redefined "hope" and "change." Some might think it's just the price of doing business. The community organizing business.

And well worth the price, I might add. The last thing radicals want is a free-thinking group that encourages strong girls to develop into strong women. They might question authority, and that could throw a monkey wrench into the ever-expanding Patriarchy on the Potomac.

"It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system," says Saul Alinksy in Rules for Radicals

You may recall that Barack Obama was mentored in the "Alinsky method." He knows how to work the system. So when radicals rule a group in decline, don't be surprized if Obama celebrates. 

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Michelangelo, Schaeffer, and the Kingdom of Washington

By Rick Pearcey • March 7, 2009, 01:01 PM

The great Renaissance painter and sculptor Michelangelo was born March 6, 1475, 534 years ago yesterday. He began work on his famed statue the David in 1501 and completed it in 1504. Michelangelo was 29 years old. 

Let's consider this man and his art and its relevance for our day, interacting with comments from Francis Schaeffer in his work How Should We Then Live? (Crossway: Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. 5, pp. 114-115).

Schaeffer begins inside the Accademia in Florence, where the David is located:

Here we see on either side Michelangelo's statues of men "tearing themselves out of the rock." These were sculpted between 1519 and 1536. They make a real humanistic statement: Man will make himself great. Man as Man is tearing himself out of the rock. Man by himself will tear himself out of nature and free himself from it. Man will be victorious. . . ."

I saw and touched (winning the polite attention of security) one of these statues during my first and only (thus far!) visit to Florence. I had hitched a ride from L'Abri in Switzerland and carried with me a copy of Irving Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy. Having that book in your mind was a tremendous way to see Florence.

"At the focal point of the room," Schaeffer continues, is the "magnificent statue of David (1504)."

As a work of art it has few equals in the world. Michelangelo took a piece of marble so flawed that no one thought it could be used, and out of it he carved this overwhelming statue. But let us notice that the David was not the Jewish David of the Bible. David was simply a title. Michelangelo knew his Judaism, and in the statue the figure is not circumcised. We are not to think of this as the biblical David but as the humanistic ideal. Man is great!

Man, human beings -- you and me, our neighbors, all of us red and yellow, black and white -- in fact are great. But not, as the unfinished statues of Michelangelo may suggest, because we have to tear ourselves out of nature. 

Rather, consistent with what the Declaration of Independence avows (which is the "Vision Statement" or "Mission Statement" of the United States), what makes humanity great is that we are the magnificent work of a Divine Sculptor, who happens to be the Creator by virtue of whom every single human being is endowed with "certain unalienable rights." And, by the way, Nature is also great and not a meaningless piece of particulate junk, because she too is a gift from the Creator and therefore ought to be cared for and respected, just like Genesis 1:28 liberates humanity to do.

As Schaeffer describes it, the political situation of Michelangelo's day bears some resemblance to our our own: 

The statue was originally planned to stand forty feet above the street on one of the buttresses of the cathedral, but was placed outside the city hall in Florence, where a copy now stands. The Medicis, the great banking family which had dominated Florence since 1434, had run the city by manipulating its republican constitution. A few years before David was made, the Medicis had been thrown down by the people and a more genuine republic restored (1494). Thus, as the statue was raised outside the city hall, though Michelangelo himself had been a friend of the Medicis, his David was seen as the slayer of tyrants. Florence was looking with confidence toward a great future. (Emphasis added.)

We see in our own day a manipulating of a "republican constitution" (think: "living" Constitution). Central to the truly living Mission Statement of United States (in the Declaration of Independence) is that a republic under the Creator would respect unalienable rights from that Creator, resulting in a balance of "form and freedom" (a phrase often used by Schaeffer). This amazing and unique balance maximized individual liberty among the people and states but without chaos, and it also established a unity of purpose nationally but without overweening control out of Washington.

To put this in contemporary parlance, it wasn't "unity is our strength" or "diversity is our strength," but rather "unity and diversity under God is our strength." All the difference in world.

To the degree that secular elites have imposed an alien agenda that casts away the founding Mission Statement of the United States (or keeps the form but denies the meaning), to that degree we have seen a corresponding loss of individual freedom, including direct attacks on the unalienable rights hardwired into humanity by the verifiable and knowable Creator. Not unrelated to this, the economic crisis we see today emerges in no small degree from a secularist, power-minded Washington-centrism and is the natural outworking of uprooting the American experiment in liberty from what the Founders knew is the soil of liberty as gifted to humanity by the Creator.

"Hope springs eternal," says the poet. And in the David is a "statement of what the humanistic man saw himself as being tomorrow!," says Schaeffer.

In this statue we have man waiting with confidence in his own strength for the future. Even the disproportionate size of the hands says that man is powerful. This statue is idealistic and romantic. There was and is no man like the David. If a girl fell in love with the statue and waited until she found such a man, she would never marry. Humanism was standing in its proud self and the David stood as a representation of that.

The challenge for humanism is not its ideals per se, but that it lacks an adequate intellectual basis to sustain those ideals, so that when crisis comes, we see breakdown instead of recovery. And we do see the breakdown, despite the concerted efforts of political, PR, and marketing types working overtime to simultaneously distract (e.g., attack Rush Limbaugh) and overlay a comfortable but Orwellian spin upon the breakdown (e.g., the president not concerned about market "gyrations").

However, in the world beyond the teleprompter, the press release, and the attack dog, what we are witnessing today is not just the loss of economic power and freedom, but also assaults on freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religious exercise, and so on. Man is great, but man is not God. You could put all the smartest people in the world in Washington and still the federal government is not God, as the original Vision Statement of the United States clearly understands. Secularist Washington-centrism must decrease if a humane American liberty is to increase. Read the directions.  

Our Founders understood this, but many of today's elites seem to reject it. It's not that the secularists are too smart for their own good, but that they are operating out of an inadequate philosophic framework. We'll recover as a nation if we return to the original Mission Statement and mark progress from that point forward. 

Perhaps the later Michelangelo can help lead the way forward:

[T]here are signs that by the end of his life Michelangelo saw the humanism was not enough. Michelangelo in his later years was in close touch with Vittoria Colonna (1490-1547), a woman who had been influenced by Reformation thought. Some people feel they see some of that influence in Michelangelo's life and work. However that may be, it is true that his later work did change. Many of his early works show his humanism, as does his David. In contrast stand his later Pietas (statues of Mary holding the dead Christ in her arms) in the cathedral in Florence and in the castle in Milan, which was probably his last. In the Pieta in the cathedral in Florence, Michelangelo put his own face on Nicodemus (or Joseph of Arimathea -- whichever the man is), and in both of the Pietas humanistic pride seems lessened, if not absent.

I began this post this morning simply as an effort to show an appreciation for one of my favorite artists, a person that I and a host of others would surely have liked to have known. He, like all of us, had his struggles. But even the Great Michelangelo of the Pietas was willing to place himself at the feet of a flesh and blood rebel condemned as a common criminal who happened to be the Savior and Son of God. That's right: A resurrected guy from the Middle East outback whose love and truth challenged and overturns the hopeful but inadequate humanism of then and now. 

The Founders understood the centrality and necessity of the Creator, and they rejected the idolatry of the federal state and the Kingdom of Washington. Many of us today get it. Hope and freedom never die. They are unalienable. They are hardwired into humane and human existence. Yes, we get it. Let's hope Washington hears before it's too late.  

Friday, February 20, 2009

What to Do With Enemies of the Constitution

By Rick Pearcey • February 20, 2009, 01:49 PM

"Maybe it's time for us to lock them up," suggests Joseph Farah. Named suspects currently at large: Mr. Bill Press and Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

The immediate concern? The Orwellian-tagged "Fairness Doctrine," in obedience to which Congress would enact a law abridging the freedom of the press. A direct contradiction to the 1st Amendment.

The concern for tomorrow? "We have so many people running around Washington, and elsewhere, including elected officials, who are openly and actively subverting the very foundation of our country's liberties," Farah writes. (italics added)

The point: If you uproot the tree of liberty from the soil of liberty, the tree dies.

It may retain its beauty for a while. The attendant PR about diversity and liberation from dirt may be cool, smooth, and with no sudden moves. Maybe Obamagirl will dance on YouTube.

But the tree per se is effectively dead. So it goes with liberty. And say hello to post-America America. The country you love may no longer exist. Geography does not equal destiny.  

Would such a punishment be fitting? I'm kind of partial to tar and feathers myself (see O Brother, Where Art Thou? for pointers on the technique applied to a KKK politician).

But one mustn't be closed-minded: Jail may well be the ticket. But not without throwing in a copy of the Constitution. Particularly hard cases might be forced to read the Declaration, especially the scary parts about the Creator.   

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Rolled Model: Tennis Pro Harkleroad "Proud of My Body"

By Rick Pearcey • May 29, 2008, 10:31 AM

It's skin-baiting 101 all over again.

This time a 23-year-old female, Ashley Harkleroad, ranked 61 in the world in women's professional tennis but not exactly a house-hold name, will bare all in an upcoming sleaze mag.

Here's the shop-worn, braindead rationale: "I'm proud of my body."

Utter nonsense.

Does "proud" entail public display?


For example, the human heart is a beautiful thing, but if a pretty girl pulls her heart out and shows it to a nice photographer, she's dead.

Even if her mom approves. Or Leno. Or Oprah.

Did you know that many beautiful things, many wonderful things of which one holds in high esteem, can be kept private -- and rightfully, fulfillingly so?

A confidence among best-friends. A loving glance between husband and wife. A good work done in secret so that PR machines and legacy-building do not take over to twist, finesse, and deceive.

Human creativity, too. As Camus said, "There is no true creation without secrecy."

Many, many private things of which we may all be proud and are quite beautiful are nevertheless destroyed when removed from their proper context.

Not just human hearts are destroyed. But we also lose that hidden place, shaped by the Creator, that all humans need if we are to unfold who we are as persons.

But the huckster comes and says, "Be proud. Show me everything!" Cha-ching!


An individual with no sense of privacy is functionally a nonperson. And that hurts because we are persons -- more than meat plus instincts -- and to destroy all boundaries, all limits, is to attack the center of who we are.

You can be No. 1 in the world and utterly dead inside. You died on the way to the top.

The best things in life aren't just free, they're hidden in secret places where respect is earned, not sold, revealed to the few, not to the many.

Dungeon Incest Story Shocks
Rupert Murdoch: Satan or Savior? 
Warren, Murdoch, Porn, and WND 
Liberal Pundit: Child Porn Should Be Permitted