Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Tell Rush Limbaugh: His Friends Are Leading Us To Socialism!

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Nevada Senator Jon Ensign has leaped into the debate over the District of Columbia’s school voucher program with both feet.  Although not usually known in Congress for his interest in education, his interest in ideology is apparent justification for attempting to continue a completely failed private school subsidy program for the District as part of the 2009 Appropriations bill.  His amendment would continue a supposed “pilot program” from 2003 pretty much indefinitely, and not even bother to require that schools be constructed safely or have qualified teachers. I know I’m being picky here.

 

School vouchers have been a certified scam since the first time any serious researcher examined their claimed “benefits”.  The D.C. voucher program was examined twice by the Bush Department of Education and twice the studies showed no significant differences between voucher students and their peers in the public schools.  In an even deeper analysis by the General Accounting Office, a few new problems surfaced.  Some schools got tuition paid for by us taxpayers even though the schools actually charged no tuition.  In one year, three of the 52 participating schools admitted that at least half of their teachers lacked even a bachelor’s degree.  And, yes, only about 25 percent of the students even left public schools that had been determined to be “in need of improvement” (the ostensible reason to start the program in the first place).  I know I’m being picky here.

 

This year an even more ridiculous argument has entered the debate.  It centers on Sarah and Matt Parker, two students who with the aid of school vouchers, actually attend the Sidwell Friends school with the Obama daughters.  Sidwell doesn’t exactly go out of its way to take in many voucher students since they make much more from wealthy self-pay parents who send their children there, but the Parkers are a start I suppose. Most of the students in the voucher program are attending schools which lack the ethereal academic standing of Sidwell.  Now here is the argument that has been picked up by the Right.  If the program is closed immediately (itself, a red herring, because even many anti-voucher legislators would in fact be willing to “grandfather” in existing students), the Parkers would not be in a position comparable to the Obama kids.  You know, that much would be true.


Here’s where the “ridiculous” factor shows up.  Most of the ideological zealots who are now repeating this line have never before thought that all people (or even all children) should be equally entitled to any product or service. Should the Parkers get a voucher for security guards, just like the Obama kids have Secret Service protection?  Why should they have to drag themselves to some multiplex to see the latest Madea film when they could get a voucher to build a screening room in their home just like the theater at the White House?  And, you know “swing set vouchers” would just be a step away. I know I’m being picky here.

 

    Of course, I know that there is a profound difference between education and swing sets   However, when truly “progressive” people talk about any kind of equality, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck argue we are a hair’s breadth from socialism!  I wonder if they understand that is the direction that Senator Ensign and the supporters of his amendment are leading us. I  hope they read this blog to know the real sources of our march toward social egalitarianism.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(32)
post a comment
Boris

posted March 9, 2009 at 8:34 pm


Neither Limbaugh or Hannity has ever spent a half hour on a college or university campus. Both constantly blast the intellectual academic elite but neither has taken a single college level course. This would include of course Economics 101 or something like that. I think it’s just rich that the Republicans get all their ideas from these two undereducated blowhards. Studies show the biggest difference between social conservatives and political liberals is not their ideology but it’s in their levels of education and intelligence. I won’t say which is which. I don’t have to.



report abuse
 

Cara floyd

posted March 10, 2009 at 5:20 am


No I do not get my education from a undereducated blowhard. Whatever that is? The Bible is far more educated than any worldly system.
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted March 10, 2009 at 5:23 am


I am not going to go crazy over trying to protect children from the abortion or the policy, not to mention the Embryonic Stem-Cell murder.
Cara



report abuse
 

Corey Mondello

posted March 10, 2009 at 7:18 am


Cara said: “The Bible is far more educated than any worldly system.”
Oh, you mean like the theocracy in Iran that stones people to death?
The bible is not much different from the Koran.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted March 10, 2009 at 8:08 am


Only in a socialist system is one preoccupied with “equality,” because such a system steals wealth from the many to benefit the few. Examples are our socialist public education system and our system of national parks and forests. In a non-socialist enterprise, such as that of distribution of cars, computers and cellphones, we don’t spend time worrying about “equality.”
In public education, wealth is stolen from everyone for the benefit of the Education Cabal–primarily made up of unionized teachers. The big losers are the taxpayers the poor dumbed down kids, and the big winners are the unqualified (though “certified”) teachers who will have graduated at the bottom of the class at their university, can’t be fired no matter how incompetent and whom no private businessman would pay so much for so little achievement.
Lynn mentions the importance of “qualified” teachers, but what he is actually referring to are “certified” teachers. Parents know that there is a big difference between the two, which explains the interest in vouchers, charter schools and home schooling. Lynn laments the lack of even “bachelor” degrees among some of the private school teachers, apparently unaware of the fact that both Bill Gates and Michael Dell also have no bachelor degrees.
Lynn asserts that there’s little difference in educational results between voucher schools and public socialist schools, but fails to mention that the former cost half as much per student. Our socialist schools are elitist in that they take from all taxpayers and benefit primarily Whites. The same is true of our public universities, for which all state taxpayers pay, but from which Whites overwhelming benefit. Over 30% of Texans are Hispanic, but at the University of Texas at Austin, for example, you see relatively few Hispanics among the students.
The same is true of our elite national parks and forests. All of us pay for them, but they are maintained mostly as expensive playgrounds for White Americans. You will rarely see a Black, Hispanic or Native American face at any of them, including Mesa Verde, smack dab in the middle of Hispanic and Indian country.
Barry Lynn needs to get out more to see the wicked face of socialism.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 10, 2009 at 10:12 am


Barry Lynn or any of us could go around looking for the wicked face of socialism I suppose. Or he could just walk outside or turn on his TV and see the hideous face of capitalism. He could watch our capitalists filch wealth and power and all the advantages of socialism for themselves and leave the rest of us with nothing. That’s what’s REALLY going on.



report abuse
 

Andrew

posted March 10, 2009 at 10:42 am


It sounds like you’re saying education is a privilege not a right, like movie theaters and swing sets. Leaving aside issues of public welfare to which I as a Democrat subscribe, I find that an educated populace is the greatest fuel for our nations economy.
Swing sets and movies are apples to schools’ proverbial orange. No movie theaters are publicly subsidized like public schools and parks (with swing sets) charge no fees for admission to people not of the district. Parks are actually a great example of open enrollment often termed “public school choice”.
The US Gov’t has used a voucher system for years to help with one of its more horrible problems, hunger. When people cannot provide for themselves and need assistance to buy food, the gov’t doesn’t provide a district-based supermarket that people must go to to receive help/food. It provides vouchers that people can redeem for food (and diapers) at any one of thousands of marts and markets throughout the US. These vouchers are called food stamps.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 10, 2009 at 10:58 am


Neither Limbaugh or Hannity has ever spent a half hour on a college or university campus.
Actually, I’ve heard that both were in college but dropped out within the first year. You’re right, though, in saying that neither was an economics major or took even one class in economics.
Lynn asserts that there’s little difference in educational results between voucher schools and public socialist schools, but fails to mention that the former cost half as much per student.
Why is that, Jimbino? In which areas do private schools cut expenses so drastically?



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted March 10, 2009 at 12:39 pm


Well Mary-Lee,
There are a lot of reasons that will occur to you if you take a few moments to think about it.
First of all, the private teachers come cheaper, because 1) There are retirees or part-timers skilled in math and science, etc., who don’t want to waste the money and the several years it takes to gain “certification.” Second, retirees on SS, spouses who have health coverage and retirement benefits, and others who do not value pensions and health coverage will work much cheaper, earning only cold hard cash. (Exactly why Honda and Toyota in the South survive while GM and Chrysler in Detroit will fold.)
2) There are folks (can you believe it?) who despise unions and “benefits.” They are, of course, among the most thoughtful folks around! In IT, where I work, it is normal for a contractor on a 1099 to earn TWICE the wage of a captive worker, because he works for cold hard cash and NO benefits: no pension, no 401K, no healthcare for him, wife and kiddies, no vacation, no sick leave, no unemployment compensation and no workers’ compensation.
3) There are folks who enjoy a gig where you are highly rewarded for competence and fired for incompetence. That doesn’t happen at all in socialist public education.
4) There are skilled PhD professors of Education who cannot teach in a socialist public school without first taking and passing the very courses they have been teaching at the university for 30 years! (Then doing student teaching, etc!) No company in the real world could survive with such a dumb hiring policy.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted March 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm


Boris,
Your argument is silly. The worst of capitalism is better than the best of socialism. Legalized theft from the poor to benefit the rich (national parks and education) is a part of socialist theory and practice. Theft of any kind is not part of capitalist theory, and you cannot blame capitalism for the sins of some criminals, like Barry Madoff. In a socialist system, a thief like him would be president, not much different from FDR and “spread the wealth” BO.



report abuse
 

Andrew

posted March 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm


One of the easiest ways to see how a choice program would benefit public schools would be to look at the program that was to be enacted in Utah. The maximum voucher was worth $3,500, less than half of the approximate $7,500 that a public school student is said to have spent on them. As that student leaves a public school (no current private school students were eligible), he/she would leave behind $4,000 for the school and district to then spend on a few number of kids.
A great short video of this is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzyaMNWLhts&feature=PlayList&p=F0542C8EF50CD707&index=1



report abuse
 

Andrew

posted March 10, 2009 at 2:14 pm


A further example of how choice improves public schools is simply through competition. Public schools are already paid for by tax funds. They appear free to any child with in the district. Private schools are not in direct competition with public schools because of the added cost. Therefore, it is absurd that, in any community but the most wealthy, a public school would suffer substantial student loss to private schools. Public schools have no pressure to compete with anyone. Expectations are managed by political spin.
In places where the barrier to entry has been lowered, as in Cleveland and Pennsylvania, improvements have been seen not only in students that leave the public system but also in the public schools from which the students left; a measure to stem further exodus.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 10, 2009 at 8:50 pm


Jimbino,
You said: Your argument is silly. The worst of capitalism is better than the best of socialism.
Boris says: My argument is silly? Yours makes no sense whatsoever. Socialism is political system, not an economic one, which is what capitalism is. What you are saying is akin to claiming that the worst baseball player is better than the best football player. The most socialist countries are in Scandinavia and they just happen to be the countries with the best education, standard of living, energy efficiency, healthcare, social services, human and equal rights, highest degree of happiness and least poverty. How do you explain that may I ask?
You said: Legalized theft from the poor to benefit the rich (national parks and education) is a part of socialist theory and practice.
Boris says: Again you’ve confused the issues here. National parks and public education have arisen because of our democracy. The majority of people support these things or we wouldn’t have them.
You said: Theft of any kind is not part of capitalist theory, and you cannot blame capitalism for the sins of some criminals, like Barry Madoff. In a socialist system, a thief like him would be president, not much different from FDR and “spread the wealth” BO.
Boris says: We just had eight years of Dick Cheney who whipped the CIA into making excuses so the company he owned could make a fortune in the aftermath of illegal wars that caused thousands of needless deaths. Wars to benefit the Military Industrial complex that helped get Bush elected. Bush and Cheney are war criminals and deserve to be tried by an international tribunal the way other Nazis in the past were handled. Somehow I don’t think Bernie Madoff would have been responsible for the deaths of well over a hundred thousand people for a twisted combination of financial gain and a religious holy war on Islam. All you FDR bashers have one important thing that shoots all your criticisms down and shows them to be absurd. FDR was reelected THREE times. Yeah the people just thought he was doing such a poor job. Let’s us another sports analogy. You just told us Yankee fans thought Babe Ruth was a lousy hitter!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 11, 2009 at 9:42 am


Boris,
One may be politically centered and the other economically, but they still determine the wealth of its people…so they can be compared.
C. Bradley Thompson is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Coordinator of Publications and Special Programs at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs. Here are some quotes from him.
“Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.”
“Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else becuase the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker”
“Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production–the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work while capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth.”
In a utopian socialist society, there is no unemployment, no poverty, no difference in wealth, status and power. Everyone is equal, and the country runs efficiently under a theoretical socialist society. In practice, however, it frequently leads to political control, censorship, limited rights and freedom, and the repression of religion.
Why would people want to live that way?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted March 11, 2009 at 9:59 am


Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else becuase the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker.
This argument always amazes me! Does anyone actually think that people do not want to work at something worthwhile (to themselves, at least) and to do a good job at it?
These people who think that way must be speaking for themselves, because I have never met anyone who was content to say at home and do nothing day in and day out. I do know two people on SSI disability income who are desperately trying to have those benefits dropped (they are better because their conditions are under medical control)and to go out and make their contribution.



report abuse
 

Wayne

posted March 11, 2009 at 10:16 am


Mary-Lee,
I live in a very poor area and I also work with the public. I see and talk to people EVERY DAY who abuse the system, and will admit they do not want to work. I am not speaking for myself, I would go crazy not working. However, believe it or not, there are people everywhere who simply are lazy.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted March 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm


Just google “socialism in sweden” to get list after list of the ways people DO abuse the socialist system in Sweden.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted March 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm


I do understand when people are forced to listen or learn about a topic other than the truth, how it could be very frustrating for the individual. Especially, when their G.P.A. or degree is at stake. Some of the public educational systems are purely a lie or a theory. I am not saying that we don’t need to continue educating ourselves, question is with what and for what reason? I understand that when you have a goal, the public system has been set up where you need to do this and that to get this. I just don’t agree with all of the choices or requirements on such degrees. I further would like to add, it is very difficult to find christian schools or private schools where you don’t have to pay. Never the less, I will further my education despite my frustration with the public systems. I have been studying the Bible for years because I wanted to see what God wants me to do and why.
I hope that we learn to defend truth whenever it is a conscern and we try to end the murders of the unborn children in The United States of America and around the world. I have learned to love God with all my heart and question what He wants me to do, every step of the way. At this point he still wants me to continue to look to him every step of the way and fight for the freedom of the unborn and promote healing of the mind and body. Part of healing is admitting what you have done wrong and change it. How can we realize what we have done wrong if we look to a standard of others opinions and ideals. That is why I study the Bible to find out what he has to say about it and address myself and my lifestyle. I love poeple to the best of my ability and can’t say that all people have the same views and are willing to change their moral conduct. I can say, you can turn your conduct around and live for God.
Cara Floyd



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 11, 2009 at 9:43 pm


Your Name or Jimbino
You said: One may be politically centered and the other economically, but they still determine the wealth of its people…so they can be compared.
Boris says: These systems a very small factor in the wealth of a nation. Things like national resources, education, and technology are what determine the wealth of the people of a nation. But the biggest three factors are location, location, location.
You said: C. Bradley Thompson is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Coordinator of Publications and Special Programs at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs. Here are some quotes from him.
You said: “Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft.”
Boris says: Under capitalism a ruling class of corporate bigwigs, bureaucrats and lobbyists decide what people NEED (Ask your doctor) or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of MONEY to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living and put it in the pockets of crooks like Bernie Madoff a very typical capitalist. In other words unrestrained capitalism is worse than theft; it’s armed robbery!
You said: “Under socialism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility. There is no reason to work harder than anyone else becuase the rewards are shared and therefore minimal to the hard-working individual; indeed, the incentive is to work less than others because the immediate loss is shared and therefore minimal to the slacker”
Boris says: Under capitalism there are built-in incentives to shirk responsibility not only to employees that aren’t unionized (Walmart) but the public by polluting the air, water, public airways etc. The notion that socialist workers are not equal to those in say the United States is funny. This is why there are about 29 other countries that are ahead of us in just about all fields of technology now. My friend Phil was just amazed at the kind of technological advances that have been made in China on his trip there that are still unheard of here in the States.
You said: “Under capitalism, the incentive is to work harder because each producer will receive the total value of his production–the rewards are not shared. Simply put: socialism rewards sloth and penalizes hard work while capitalism rewards hard work and penalizes sloth.”
Boris says: What an empty argument. Not one example can be given because there aren’t any. American companies have now adopted the “team building” concept that began in socialist countries decades ago. See they found out individual greed is not really a good motivator because greed is a personality flaw. Anyone who has ever played sports knows that playing for your teammates is the greatest motivator you can have in the heat of battle. I know I was more than happy to “take one for the team.”
You said: In a utopian socialist society, there is no unemployment, no poverty, no difference in wealth, status and power. Everyone is equal, and the country runs efficiently under a theoretical socialist society. In practice, however, it frequently leads to political control, censorship, limited rights and freedom, and the repression of religion.
Boris says: There has never been anything close to a utopian society socialist, capitalism, communist or otherwise. Human rights have been violated under every political and economic system. These rights violations and other atrocities had nothing to do with what type of system was SUPPOSED to be in place but rather the political ambitions of power mad dictators.
Why would people want to live that way?
Boris says: No one wants to live in the society you’ve described. You’ve made a series of straw man arguments to belittle socialism and invented societies that don’t exist and then engaged in fear mongering. I’ve seen you make solid cases for other things on this blog so this leads me to the safe assumption you just don’t have a case here at all.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted March 13, 2009 at 1:25 am


The real reason Rev. Lynn and others are opposed to vouchers is because most people using them go to religious (Catholic or Christian) schools and are taught about God etc. That is The Real Reason. They certainly don’t want any more “religious people” Period! I’m tired of these ridiculous arguments that are just a cover for this above reason.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted March 13, 2009 at 1:28 am


Just like the absolutely ridiculous argument that no students should get vouchers because it’s not fair to any one else! What a bunch of whiners who can’t take real life.



report abuse
 

another bob

posted March 15, 2009 at 3:27 am


Why all the unreasoning fear of socialism. Socialism is ideally concerned with providing poor people with services that capitalism finds unprofitable to provide. Since when do Christians hate their poor neighbors? Prehaps Your Name and Jimbino aren’t Christian and Boris is?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 16, 2009 at 8:59 am


==Since when do Christians hate their poor neighbors?==
(Ecc 3:8) A time to love, and a time to hate…



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 16, 2009 at 8:30 pm


This says it all when it comes to religion:
(Ecc 3:8) A time to love, and a time to hate…
Of course the major tenet of humanism is that hate is the only profane word in any language and there is no reason for hate to exist on this planet. This is why humanist morals and ethics are superior to those coming from any religions especially one with such a track record of hate and violence as Christianity.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 17, 2009 at 6:22 am


==Of course the major tenet of humanism is that hate is the only profane word in any language …==
Then quit relying on it.
==… there is no reason for hate to exist on this planet. ==
Then, stop perpetuating it.
==This is why humanist morals and ethics are superior to those coming from any religions especially one with such a track record of hate and violence as Christianity.==
Except that the Godless, so-called “humanist morals and ethics” have led to more death in the last century than during all the history of Mankind.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 17, 2009 at 6:38 am


Except that the Godless, so-called “humanist morals and ethics” have led to more death in the last century than during all the history of Mankind.
Boris says: I researched this claim and found out some interesting facts anyone can check for themselves. Joseph Stalin was a deist who never left the Russian Orthodox Church. Adolph Hitler was a devout Christian who spent three years in a protestant seminary where he studied the anti-Semitic ravings of his role model martin Luther. Pol Pot studied both Buddhism and in a Catholic monastery and rejected atheism while accepting the rest of Marx’s philosophies, though he distorted and abused them. Mao was a Buddhist.
Humanism is against war and killing of human beings under any circumstances.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2009 at 11:29 pm


==Humanism is against war and killing of human beings under any circumstances.==
I’d buy a ticket to see the look on your mother’s face, your wife’s face and your kids’ faces when you tell them that their lives aren’t worth saving from a killer.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm


==Joseph Stalin was a deist who never left the Russian Orthodox Church.==
He was Godless.
== Adolph Hitler was a devout Christian who spent three years in a protestant seminary where he studied the anti-Semitic ravings of his role model martin Luther.==
And, yet, he was Godless.
== Pol Pot studied both Buddhism and in a Catholic monastery and rejected atheism while accepting the rest of Marx’s philosophies, though he distorted and abused them. Mao was a Buddhist.==
Both Godless.



report abuse
 

Brad

posted March 26, 2009 at 12:34 am


I think you guys will like this to put a better perspective on socialism:
Lets say these kids take a vote and decide that the grade that each one of them will get will be determined by everyone’s average grade on an exam. Everyone takes the test and the average grade is a B. The kids that barely studied are thrilled because there is no way they thought they’d get a B. On the other hand, the “A” students are bummed because they receive a grade lower than they deserve.
On the next test, more of the kids do not study and a few more put more effort in because they want the A. The grades come back and the average is a D+. Because more kids did not study, the average came down. So the kids that should have gotten As or even Bs on the exam are cheated out and the kids who should have failed receive a higher grade than they should.
As you can see this is unfair. This is essentially what happens in a socialist society. Fewer people work knowing that they have someone to “bail them out.” The people that are working hard receive far less.
This as you can imagine, starts the “blaming game.” So-and-so blames one and so-and-so blames the next yet nothing gets accomplished.
A socialist society will never succeed. It never has and it most likely never will. This is what our current President is thriving for. If it works I would be astonished.



report abuse
 

Wayne

posted March 26, 2009 at 11:28 am


Brad is right



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 26, 2009 at 2:41 pm


Brad said: A socialist society will never succeed. It never has and it most likely never will.
Boris says: Huh? This blogger, Brad, has obviously never been to or even heard about Scandinavia where people enjoy the highest standard of living, have the best public education, lowest crime rates, happiest people, lowest incidence of poverty and many other advantages over our supposedly democratic capitalistic society. The fact that the vast majority of governments in the world are socialist and the United States has to keep borrowing money from these countries refutes this blogger’s claim absolutely.
In the United States we operate under a system of corporate socialism in which the general public is fed the argument that free markets actually exist, when in fact we are about as far from a free market as has ever been by any definition of the phrase. This is what causes all the psychotic behavior on the part of the moronic masses hypnotized by the Orwellian media. If you don’t believe me well then “ask your doctor.” Our corporately socialized prescription drug cartel will be glad to assist you by prescribing psychotropic drug use to keep you thinking you and our government are not being controlled by rich and powerful socialist corporations.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted November 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm


Vouchers give underprivileged students a chance to be on an equal playing field. Families who otherwise would not get the opportunity to attend an excellent school can have this experience. Speaking about school funding, should we keep giving money to public schools that are failing, those receiving an F on yearly benchmarks? This doesn’t make sense.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.