On Friday of last week, the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco - the nation's most leftist and ineffective appeals court - continued its anti-Christian jihad as it refused to rehear the case of the Mount Soledad War Memorial Cross being removed by various liberal state and federal judges.  This beautiful 29-foot cross sits on public land on a mountain overlooking the Pacific Ocean which has been seen by countless millions over the decades.  It was dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans. 
 
The equally infamous American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - a rabidly anti-Christian organization - has been fighting to get this war memorial cross removed for over a decade.  The ACLU and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have been working in tandem to rid God and Christianity from the public square.
 

The left-wing movement, led by some radical clerics and lawmakers, are once again trying to stop faith-based organizations that receive federal funds from hiring and firing employees on the basis of religion.  These same hypocritical leftists do not want to allow employees who are forced to pay union dues to stop paying such dues. 

"USA Today" had the following quote by Christian Coalition of America's Michele Combs regarding this latest attempt to squash the First Amendment rights of people of faith:  "We will do whatever we can to make sure this stays."

The article continued:  "Michele Combs, spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition, (said) charitable organizations should have the right to employ those who share their groups' values. 'That's our freedom,' she said, 'to hire and fire people of our faith.'

The rest of the article which appeared in "USA Today" is directly below:

- - - 

Critics push Obama to change faith-based hiring rules

PMA group of clergy and lawmakers is trying to overturn a nearly decade-old policy that allows faith-based organizations that receive federal funds to hire and fire employees on the basis of religion.  Critics say President Obama has reneged on a campaign promise to repeal the policy, which was put into place by President Bush in 2002.

A would-be father in New Mexico is on a legal course to define whether or not men have an right to free speech when it concerns the activity of the women who carry their unborn children.  Specifically, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, can they speak out against it publicly?  What happens when the free speech rights enshrined in our First Amendment comes into conflict with the manufactured "right to privacy" which legalized abortion?

35 year old Greg Fultz of Alamogordo, New Mexico has paid to put up a billboard stating, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"  The billboard has a picture of Fultz with an outline of a baby in his arms.

The woman has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy.

From the story...

...Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

Do pro-life conservatives deserve the freedoms of our Constitution?  At least one liberal Democrat Senator says they don't.

At a recent Planned Parenthood rally to keep its hands in taxpayer's pocketbooks, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg said that "Planned Parenthood is under attack by Tea Party Republicans who have put their extremist ideology above women's health".  He then went a step further and, referring to pro-life counter-protestors, stated: "These people don't deserve the freedoms in the Constitution!"

New Jersey pro-life activist Marie Tasy suggested that such comments provide "evidence of how Planned Parenthood and its supporters actually feel."

She went on:

“This statement is shameful coming from a U.S. Senator,” Tasy added. “Lautenberg made these remarks surrounded by Planned Parenthood employees, supporters and state lawmakers who applauded him. These remarks are absolutely shameful and need to be exposed.”

Exactly.

The rally itself was part of Planned Parenthood's campaign involving a pink bus that's been traveling the country to drum up support for keeping their tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding in place.  This from an organization that has, as Tasy pointed out, been caught on tape engaging in criminal activity, (including aiding and abetting in the sex trafficking of minor girls).

(Click here and tell your members of Congress to STOP taxpayer funding of abortion today!)

Once you start down the path of redefining marriage to include anything other than the exclusive union of a man and a woman, it's not long before those who firmly disagree with that redefinition begin to see their values come under assault.  And that is just what has happened in Illinois.

Christian bed and breakfast owners are being sued by homosexuals for not allowing the use of their facilities for a gay "civil union" ceremony.  And since (as of this June) the state of Illinois legally allows such unions, the complaint is over discrimination, and the Illinois Attorney General's office is investigating.

From the story:

The owner of the first B&B, the Beall Mansion of Alton, Ill., had told the complainant, Todd Wathen of Mattoon, IL, that they only let out their premises for weddings. The Christian owners of the second, Jim and Beth Walder of TimberCreek Bed and Breakfast of Paxton, had a similar response.

In the course of e-mail correspondence with Jim Walder, Wathen argued: “starting June 1st, a civil union is a wedding, you have to get a licenses at the county clerks office, it is just not a marriage ... but a legal wedding ... so aren’t you discriminating against me and my partner, because of our sexual orientation??”

A judge in Great Britain has ruled that a Christian couple can no longer serve as foster parents due to their religious views that homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, really.  It's come to this.

The couple, Owen and Eunice Johns have been foster parents to over twenty children, but were banned from the program by social workers in 2007 as a result of interviews associated with the program where they expressed their opposition to homosexuality because of their faith.  Now a British court has upheld that ban.

The Associated Press reported that judges at London’s Royal Courts of Justice determined that laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination take precedence over the couple’s religious beliefs.

Britain, the judges ruled, was a “secular state, not a theocracy.”

Of course they failed to explain just what that has to do with anything.  I don't think it's lost on anyone who knows absolutely anything about history that England is not a theocracy.  But (at least until this point it seems), that hasn't stopped anyone from having their own personal religious beliefs.

“We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, views on sexual ethics,” Mrs. Johns said.

Cowardly elected officials and bureaucrats continue to cave-in to atheists and other haters of the Christian faith as evidenced by a New Hampshire school which has assigned a book which refers to Jesus as a 'Wine-Guzzling Vagrant and Socialist.

A New Hampshire couple is calling for officials at their son's school to be fired after the teen was assigned a book that refers to Jesus Christ as a "wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist."

A FoxNews.com account of the scandal continues:  "Aimee Taylor says her oldest son, 16-year-old Jordan Henderson, was required to read "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America," this fall for Bedford High School's personal finance class.

The latest poll announced on Fox News yesterday shows that 49% of Americans view Muslims unfavorably, up from 39% one year after the Islamic terrorist attack on America.  Is it any wonder with what has been going on for months regarding the Ground Zero mosque. 
 
In the past couple weeks, America has seen a radical Christian pastor determined to commit a provocative act outside his church in Florida.  For the past few months, America has also seen a so-called "moderate" Islamic cleric determined to oppose the will of 70% of the American people  --  and more importantly, the wishes of the majority of 9-11 victims  --  and build a huge mosque at Ground Zero in an enterprise called the Cordoba Project.  That name itself is a provocation considering the propensity of Islamic conquerors to build mosques on top of revered Christian and Jewish sites or other hallowed sites. 
 

Note this from the Rutherford Institute which wrote a letter to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors urging them to allow Christmas diplays, etc. at the courthouse:

VICTORY: Loudoun County Board of Supervisors Votes to Celebrate Diversity by Allowing Seasonal Holiday Displays at Courthouse

In another stunning example of just how far things have gone in our country when it comes to government's hostility to religion, a group of students were told by officials to stop praying outside of the US Supreme Court.

The group of 15 Christian school students, there on a trip from Arizona, were confronted by a Supreme Court police officer and told that their praying was against the law.

According to a spokesman with the Alliance Defense Fund, the officer's interruption of their prayer was "abrupt", and that "they were told to stop praying because they were violating the law and they had to take their prayer elsewhere".

They did.  They moved down to the sidewalk and stood in the gutter.

Via Fox News: