2 years after death, woman gets her Christmas Wish for family

Have tissues ready and a few minutes to compose yourself afterward: Man receives letter from dying wife 2 years later. The letter — and a wish — was to be given to him only after he’d found love again. Prior to her death, Brenda Schmitz had made arrangements with a friend to deliver the letter to radio station KSTZ in Des Moines, Iowa. Brenda had always been touched by the “Star” 102.5 Christmas Wish program that a Des Moines radio station runs each year.

The station takes submissions of Christmas Wishes and consults with local partners to grant some of them.

“About a week and half ago we got a letter in the mail,” Scott Allen said Friday night. He’s the brand manager at the station, KSTZ “Star” 102.5 FM. “We’ve been doing the Christmas Wish program for 20-plus years. We’ve never received a wish like this, ever.”

Brenda Schmitz, in an undated photo. (star1025.com)

Dated Aug. 3, 2011, Brenda Schmitz’s letter lists three wishes.

“I have a wish for David and the boys and the woman and her family if she has kids also,” she wrote. “I want them to know I love them very much and they always feel safe in a world of pain.” David and Brenda had four sons: Carter, Josh, Justin and Max.

Station officials told David Schmitz on Thursday that they were granting a Christmas Wish for him. But he didn’t know about Brenda’s letter until he was in the studio and on the air — hearing host Colleen Kelly read his wife’s words.

Me and My House Will Serve the Lord and Not Watch A&E

Steven Ruffatto Asst. Professor
Criminal Justice at Harrisburg Area Community College 

Dear A&E,

Thank you for bringing us a show that was family friendly and fun to watch. I greatly appreciated the fact that my Christian family could watch a Christian family on TV as opposed to much of the garbage that is reality TV. Unfortunately, you have done a disservice to Phil Robertson as well as the Christian AND non-Christian fans of Duck Dynasty.

Freedom of speech means that we are all free to speak what we believe. The Supreme Court does restrict some speech. In fact they specifically address such speech that may cause panic or physical injury. The example they give is that someone cannot scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.

Phil Roberson in his “I Am Second” video. (Source: I Am Second screen shot)

Why, because it would cause a panic and people would get hurt. Did Phil Robertson’s speech meet this criteria set forth by the Supreme Court? No, it did not. The only people who panicked were the A&E executives that decided to pull Phil from the show.

Phil Robertson spoke what he knew to be true according to the Bible. Does that ruffle some peoples feathers because it goes against what they want to do? Yes it does.

The members of GLAAD are free to speak out against Christianity and those that believe in the Bible. How is that speech any different than Phil’s?

Under the U.S. Constitution they both have a right to express their thoughts and opinions. So why is Phil being punished for expressing his opinions? Why are you punishing Phil Robertson for being a Christian? This was not an incident of homophobia or hate speech.

This 2012 photo released by A&E shows, from left, Phil Robertson, Jase Robertson, Si Robertson and Willie Robertson from the A&E series, “Duck Dynasty.” The A&E channel says “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson is off the show indefinitely after condemning gays as sinners in a magazine interview. In a statement Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2013, A&E said it was extremely disappointed to read Robertson’s comments in GQ magazine. (AP Photo/A&E, Zach Dilgard)

Homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin in the Bible just as other sins are listed. Stating it as a sin does not make someone anti-gay. Phil even stated, “we should love God and each other.”

If GLAAD and the LGBT community expect everyone to be tolerant of their views, opinions, and lifestyle choices, they too must be tolerant of Bible believing Christians, their views, opinions, and lifestyle choices. For A&E to succumb to the pressures of “political correctness” speaks volumes about your true concerns.

However, I would remind you that tolerance is a two-way street.

At this point what is needed is a clarification about your programming and your ant-Christian stance. If you are truly an anti-Christian station, which the move to pull Phil from the show based on his Christian beliefs reveals you to be, please be up front about it. You will most likely lose viewers based on this incident.

However, do not for a minute believe that you are losing viewers because of Phil’s comments. You will lose viewers due to your reaction to his comments.

Therefore, without clarification from A&E that you support Christians and Christian beliefs as much as you support GLAAD and the LGBT community, then  “As for Me and My House We Will No Longer Support or Watch A&E.”

Respectfully,

Steven D. Ruffatto

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

I’d really like to hear your thoughts. To me, this goes way beyond a TV show or family. It’s about political correctness trumping freedom of speech. What do you think? Please leave your comments below.

DOD Holds First LBGT Pride Event in Kandahar Afghanistan -What’s wrong with this picture?

U.S. troops deployed to Kandahar Airfield and Bagram held the first Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender Pride event to be observed in a deployed environment. Interesting…also in Kandahar troops are counseled about displaying their Christian or Jewish faith and told to be culturally sensitive to Muslims by not speaking of Christianity, Judaism or openly showing bibles.
(Is anyone missing the hypocrisy here?)
I’m so disgusted I’m almost speechless.
What happened to pride in being a Soldier, Marine, or Airman… we now have to have events espousing sexual orientation?

As a side note:Homosexuality is still outlawed under Islam and punishable by death as a Hudood crime- I’m sure the Afghan people were thrilled.

Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF): ‘CELEBRATE OUR GODLESS CONSTITUTION’ – Seriously?

In response to a pro-faith ad from The Hobby Lobby ad titled “In God We Trust”, The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has taken out their own full-page ad: ‘CELEBRATE OUR GODLESS CONSTITUTION’.

“The ads quote U.S. Founders and Framers on their strong views against religion in government, and often critical views on religion in general,” reads a press release announcing the atheist effort. “The ad features two revolutionaries and Deists, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, and the first four presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.”

People reading the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune and other daily newspapers across America will likely be surprised when they are greeted with today’s atheist-laden history lesson.

“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” reads one of the quotes from a part of a treaty that was once signed by John Adams.

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other course,” another statement from Washington reads. And these are just two of the many.

See the full FFRF ad here

The Hobby Lobby ad  takes the opposite stand –  titled “In God We Trust,” it provides quotes showing the Founders’ pro-faith views. Among the quotes and information shared in the text are statements from President George Washington and Patrick Henry.

“It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor,” the nation’s first president is quoted as saying (this comes from a Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789).

“Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” – James Madison: Signer of the Constitution; Fourth President of the United States
A brief history lesson on the Establishment  Clause: The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

The Establishment Clause is followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
These two clauses make up what are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. But here’s the kicker – A notable precursor of the Establishment Clause was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The statute was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly in 1779. James Madison played an important role in its passage. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion to people of all religious faiths, including Catholics and Jews as well as members of all Protestant denominations. I can not make it anymore clear than that. 

Our Godless Constitution? Hardly. This was all just another way for militant atheists to poke a stick in the eyes of anyone that believes in a higher power. 

Which brings me to this question: Is our country founded One Nation Under God?
To answer that question, I’ll leave you with this…

Leave your thoughts and comments below. You know my opinion, I’d like to hear yours.

excepts from The Blaze

School Threatens to Ruin Valedictorian’s Naval Academy Appointment

Remington Reimer

A Texas high school principal threatened to sabotage a valedictorian’s appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy after the student delivered a speech that referenced God and the U.S. Constitution.

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation with the Liberty Institute, said Joshua High School principal Mick Cochran threatened to write a letter to the U.S. Naval Academy disparaging the character of Remington Reimer.

“It was intimidating having my high school principal threaten my future because I wanted to stand up for the Constitution and acknowledge my faith and not simply read a government approved speech, the teenager said.

Sasser is now representing the teenager and is calling for the Joshua Independent School District to issue a public statement exonerating him of any wrongdoing.

He said the speech was edited and reviewed by four different school officials – including an officer in the JROTC. Sasser said the censorship violated federal and state laws.

“All he did was simply follow state law and Joshua ISD policy,” he said.

Remington Reimer, a senior at Joshua High School, made national headlines on June 6 when officials cut off his microphone in mid-speech after he strayed from pre-approved remarks and began talking about his relationship with Jesus Christ. He received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world,” the Joshua Star reported.

The following day the principal met with Reimer’s father and informed him “that he intended to punish Remington for his perceived misdeed.”

Atty. Hiram Sasser said, “Specifically, he threatened to send a letter to the United States Naval Academy advising them that Remington has poor character or words to that effect.”

After consulting with a school attorney, the principal temporarily retracted the threat.

“The principal said he wanted to try to ruin him for what he did – for talking about the Constitution and his faith,” Sasser said. “I don’t know if he’s going to be able to continue to be the principal of that school.”

Reimer then talked about free speech and the Constitution and how “I was threatened with having the mic turned off.”

And that point – the audio feed was cut – leaving those in the audience confused. But Reimer kept on talking.

Following is a transcript of what the school district didn’t want graduates or their families to hear:

“We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished,” he said according to the Star. “Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or Constitutional rights from you.”

What’s your reaction to Joshua High School principal Mick Cochran’s threat? Do you believe that Remington Reimer was illegally censored? 

Why Must We Fight About Marriage?

   There are really two different ideas of marriage being debated in our society right now, and they cannot coexist: Marriage is either a conjugal union of a man and a woman designed to unite husband and wife to each other and to any children who may come from their union, or it is a relationship for the mutual benefit of adults which the state recognizes and to which it grants certain benefits.

In our society, marriage wasn’t invented by homophobic Christian radicals in the 1930s. It developed in every single nation on earth as the building block of our various societies.
Even in societies in which the model is polygamous, in every case the relations are heterosexual because it is the only model in which our society propagates itself.
As an institution, it predates Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years.

Our society has four components to marriage:

• Age

• Number

• Gender

• Blood

All of these components are necessary, not so much to protect the participants, but rather to ensure the ideal situation for the offspring.
Age: Persons entering marriage are making a contract. To do so, they must be of an age that will make their contract legal. It is of their own volition, and they cannot be forced into it.
Number: Although in some societies there are plural marriages with many partners, our society has deemed that the ideal model for the children is to have one father and one mother. Psychologists have long determined this to be the ideal for children for very many reasons.
Gender: Twenty years ago, this would be a no-brainer; however, our messed up, socially regressive society no longer sees the importance of having two genders. Without two genders, it is physically impossible to have offspring. As well, the ideal situation for a child to be raised in is to be raised by his or her biological mother and biological father.
Yes, some children are raised in orphanages, but the guardians are not parents. And let us not forget that the role of the father differs from the role of the mother…  significantly.
Blood: Blood relatives cannot marry because if they do, they will have defective children. There is not much else to say about this.
So, given all of the above, how can one argue for homosexual couplings to be put on the same level as marriage?

   Maybe they want recognition. That’s fine, but they cannot have children, which is a necessary component of marriage. If it weren’t then why the four components above?
They may think that it’s against their rights, and hey, it won’t affect you and me right? Right? WRONG! It reduces the roles and rights of fathers and mothers to that of “generic parent.” To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children. Marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.

So, this leads me to my final point: Why does the state (eg: the government) offer various tax-incentives to people that get married? Put simply- to encourage it, because it is good for the state. In short, it makes new people and sustains the state.

The larger picture that’s becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it’s a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination. Hell, I’m all for equal rights for blind people,  but I don’t want them driving cars!  And that’s my point: you can restrict or discriminate based on disability when it makes sense. Everyone should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different. Marriage really is unique for a reason.

That, my friends, is why we must continue to fight against redefining the definition of marriage.

Hello Pot…Meet Kettle

Over the past month, several progressive-activist blogs have waged a
war against the company Chick-Fil-A and its CEO Dan Cathy for a stating his personal belief in traditional marriage.

Now, several college campuses have joined in the witch hunt by
starting online petitions stopping or having CFA restaurants removed
from their food courts.

For example, Jose Chavira, a N.C. State graduate student, started an
online petition Friday seeking to get the university to remove Chick-
Fil-A from the Atrium food court on campus.

Chavira, and his ilk, have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being a bigot or intolerant. Pot, meet Kettle.
I’m not so sure he even knows or understands what being tolerant
truly means.

Jose Chavira stated,“… it’s almost offensive in a sense that our
university is willing to maintain this relationship with an
organization that blatently discriminates against a portion of our
student body.” Discriminates? There’s not been a single charge or
accusation against CEO Dan Cathy for discrimination against any
group.

In an interview with the Baptist Press and later on a Christian radio
program, Mr. Cathy defended marriage between a man and a woman.
When asked about his support of traditional marriage he
said, “Guilty as charged. I’m very much supportive of the family —
the biblical definition of the family unit.”

That was it. Mr. Cathy simply expressed a deeply held conviction
rooted in his Christian faith. Mr. Cathy holds no public office, he
makes no laws and is not active in the political arena. He’s simply a
man with a personal opinion, whether you agree with him or not.

What bothers me even more than some dopey college students are
people like Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm
Emanuel.

Thomas Menino said he would try to deny Chick-fil-A’s application
for permits to open restaurants in that city. Now that’s
discrimination. Not only is that discrimination, but illegal and
unconstitutional. So now Americans are turning into the thought police? That’s scary.

In Chicago, Rahm Emanuel has said, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values.”
Are Chicago values represented by Louis Farrakhan and his anti-semetic, racist hate speech? Remember, Farrakhan was given a key to the city.
It makes me wonder if Menino or Emanuel have ever heard of the 1st Amendment.

These same progressive groups that started this controversy have accused CFA of making financial
donations, a total of 2 million dollars, to seven “anti-gay” organizations which included the Marriage And Family Legacy Fund.
In effect, what they’re saying is, if  you support traditional marriage and family, (God forbid you should, it’s not politically correct to do so) that automatically makes you anti-gay.
Remember kids, Pro Traditional Marriage = Bigot, Homophobic, Anti-Gay!

Free speech is a one way street if it opposes the progressive viewCompanies such as Kraft Foods/Oreo cookie, Absolut Vodka, Google

Companies like Kraft Foods/Oreo, Google and Coca-Cola (just to name a few) all sponsor gay pride events across the country, donating millions of dollars… yet here I sit with Oreo in hand (literally) while writing this using Google’s Chrome browser.
Did I happen to mention I have a six pack of Coke in my fridge?
How intolerant of me.

So if I were to follow the progressive logic, wouldn’t that make all those companies anti-heterosexual, small minded bigots?
Of course not, don’t be silly…it only works one way!

The actions and reactions from the people I mentioned, tells you everything you need to know… every sort of speech, activity and expression should be protected, except the speech, activity and expression of people with opposing opinions.

It’s a shame that so many in the LGBT community, and their
supporters, asks for tolerance and are so intolerant of other opinions.

Free speech isn’t solely for the left or the right, it’s for every American
as it states in our Constitution, as it should be.
Some would do well to remember that freedom of religion, press, and
expression goes both ways.