Thursday, September 30, 2010
VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
This program has been around for a little while but it is one that I just learned about. The subject of Homeless Vets is one that is near and dear to my heart.
There was a time after I retired from the Air Force 26 years ago that my children and I could quite easily have been homeless. It is a long story, too long to go into here and now.
I WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT MY FELLOW VETERANS.
This page is located on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homes and Communities website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/vash/index.cfm.
HUD-VASH Vouchers
Information by State
Print version
Jump to...
Overview
Related Notices and Guidance
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
What's New
Slides from HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of October 27, 2009
Portability Attachment -
This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAM
Overview
The 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (the Act) (Public Law 110-161) enacted December 26, 2007, provided $75 million dollars of funding for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) voucher program as authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the United Stated Housing Act of 1937. The HUD–VASH program combines HUD HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Veterans Affairs at its medical centers and in the community.
The 2008 Appropriation required HUD to “make such funding available…to public housing agencies (PHAs) that partner with eligible VA Medical Centers (VAMC) or other entities as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, based on geographical need for such assistance as identified by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, public housing agency administrative performance, and other factors as specified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Based on this language, the VA identified 132 VAMCs that will participate with the program. In doing so, the VA took into account the population of homeless veterans needing services in the area, the number of homeless veterans served by the homeless programs at each VAMC during FY 2006 and FY 2007, geographic distribution and VA case management resources. There will be at least one site in each of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Generally, the HUD-VASH HCV program will be administered in accordance with regular HCV program requirements (24 CFR Section 982). However, the Act allows HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that HUD administers in connection with this program in order to effectively deliver and administer HUD-VASH voucher assistance. The HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (including the waivers and alternative requirements from HCV program rules) were published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2008.
HUD awarded funding for approximately 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers in May 2008.
Related Notices and Guidance
PIH Notice 2009-11 - Project-Basing HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers
Portability Attachment - This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAMC
PIH 2008-37 — Reporting Requirements for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program
HUD-VASH Questions and Answers: These Qs & As serve as a supplement to the HUD-VASH Operating Requirements published in the Federal Register on May 6 and 19, 2008.
There was a printing error in the Federal Register Notice entitled "Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program," which was published on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. The section on mobility and portability of HUD-VASH vouchers (Section F) is incomplete. The Federal Register issued a correction on Monday, May 19, 2008. Below are links to a complete version of the Operating Requirements, as well as the May 6th and May 19th publications in the Federal Register.
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements – Complete Version
Federal Register Notice – May 6, 2008
Federal Register Notice – May 19, 2008
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 10-27-2009: Below are the materials discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of October 27, 2009
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH: The VA Perspective (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Project Based Vouchers (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH and HUD's Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 02-10-2009: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of February 10, 2009.
HUD Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 09-19-2008: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of September 19, 2008.
Program and Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Update (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 05-08-2008: Below are the documents related to the HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of May 8, 2008. These documents will be used during the Broadcast.
VA Case Management (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD - VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
View archived HUD-VASH Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
PHA Contacts for HUD-VASH
VA Sites and PHAs (MS-Excel)
National Homeless Veteran Call Center
Content current as of 26 February 2010
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 Find the address of a HUD office near you
There was a time after I retired from the Air Force 26 years ago that my children and I could quite easily have been homeless. It is a long story, too long to go into here and now.
I WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT MY FELLOW VETERANS.
This page is located on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homes and Communities website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/vash/index.cfm.
HUD-VASH Vouchers
Information by State
Print version
Jump to...
Overview
Related Notices and Guidance
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
What's New
Slides from HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of October 27, 2009
Portability Attachment -
This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAM
Overview
The 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (the Act) (Public Law 110-161) enacted December 26, 2007, provided $75 million dollars of funding for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) voucher program as authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the United Stated Housing Act of 1937. The HUD–VASH program combines HUD HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Veterans Affairs at its medical centers and in the community.
The 2008 Appropriation required HUD to “make such funding available…to public housing agencies (PHAs) that partner with eligible VA Medical Centers (VAMC) or other entities as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, based on geographical need for such assistance as identified by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, public housing agency administrative performance, and other factors as specified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Based on this language, the VA identified 132 VAMCs that will participate with the program. In doing so, the VA took into account the population of homeless veterans needing services in the area, the number of homeless veterans served by the homeless programs at each VAMC during FY 2006 and FY 2007, geographic distribution and VA case management resources. There will be at least one site in each of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Generally, the HUD-VASH HCV program will be administered in accordance with regular HCV program requirements (24 CFR Section 982). However, the Act allows HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that HUD administers in connection with this program in order to effectively deliver and administer HUD-VASH voucher assistance. The HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (including the waivers and alternative requirements from HCV program rules) were published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2008.
HUD awarded funding for approximately 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers in May 2008.
Related Notices and Guidance
PIH Notice 2009-11 - Project-Basing HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers
Portability Attachment - This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAMC
PIH 2008-37 — Reporting Requirements for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program
HUD-VASH Questions and Answers: These Qs & As serve as a supplement to the HUD-VASH Operating Requirements published in the Federal Register on May 6 and 19, 2008.
There was a printing error in the Federal Register Notice entitled "Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program," which was published on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. The section on mobility and portability of HUD-VASH vouchers (Section F) is incomplete. The Federal Register issued a correction on Monday, May 19, 2008. Below are links to a complete version of the Operating Requirements, as well as the May 6th and May 19th publications in the Federal Register.
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements – Complete Version
Federal Register Notice – May 6, 2008
Federal Register Notice – May 19, 2008
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 10-27-2009: Below are the materials discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of October 27, 2009
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH: The VA Perspective (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Project Based Vouchers (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH and HUD's Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 02-10-2009: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of February 10, 2009.
HUD Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 09-19-2008: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of September 19, 2008.
Program and Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Update (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 05-08-2008: Below are the documents related to the HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of May 8, 2008. These documents will be used during the Broadcast.
VA Case Management (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD - VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
View archived HUD-VASH Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
PHA Contacts for HUD-VASH
VA Sites and PHAs (MS-Excel)
National Homeless Veteran Call Center
Content current as of 26 February 2010
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 Find the address of a HUD office near you
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
JUST COULDN'T RESIST THIS ONE
"The great desideratum in Government is so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society." --James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
No particular reason to single out this quote above any other. I just love that word desideratum. now there is a 6 bit word if ever I saw one. Just had to look it up and here's what I found:
Sponsored links
Desideratum at Amazon
Low Prices on Millions of Books. Free Shipping on Qualified Orders!
www.Amazon.com/books
de·sid·er·a·tum (d-sd-rtm, -rä-)
n. pl. de·sid·er·a·ta (-t)
Something considered necessary or highly desirable: "The point is not that the artist has 'penetrated the character' of his sitter, that commonplace desideratum of portraiture" (Robert Hughes).
[Latin dsdertum, from neuter past participle of dsderre, to desire; see desire.]
No particular reason to single out this quote above any other. I just love that word desideratum. now there is a 6 bit word if ever I saw one. Just had to look it up and here's what I found:
Sponsored links
Desideratum at Amazon
Low Prices on Millions of Books. Free Shipping on Qualified Orders!
www.Amazon.com/books
de·sid·er·a·tum (d-sd-rtm, -rä-)
n. pl. de·sid·er·a·ta (-t)
Something considered necessary or highly desirable: "The point is not that the artist has 'penetrated the character' of his sitter, that commonplace desideratum of portraiture" (Robert Hughes).
[Latin dsdertum, from neuter past participle of dsderre, to desire; see desire.]
Saturday, September 25, 2010
TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET
THE PATHWAY GREASED BY THE SNIVLING SNOT OF WHINNERS LIKE THESE
Are you, like me, ready to puke all over these sniveling snots? Like it or not people this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morality. Nowhere, as far as I can remember, does the Old Testament or New Testament condone polygamy. Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!
Now, I have longed maintained that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is their business and nobody else’s. Judgment is God’s, not mine. I can find their actions offensive to my beliefs but it still isn’t my call to judge their actions. That is God’s call to make. I have committed too many sins on my own to atone for.
What does frost this old G.I.’s arse is the fact that there are way too many namy bamy bleeding heart liberal news outlets to provide a platform for these people.
If I was a pastor and had a pulpit this is the type of lack of morality that exists in our world.
Three wives? At one time? I have 3 ex-wives and they were one at a time. That was all that I could handle.
Peacock Plugs Polygamy
Softball Today interview lets polygamists gripe about acceptance.
By Krista West
Culture and Media Institute
September 23, 2010
Do you have a spouse? Would you like another one? How about three more?
On Sept. 23, the Today Show interviewed Kody Brown and his four wives. Brown and his “plural family” are the stars of TLC’s new show “Sister Wives.” In the nine minute interview Brown and his wives were given free rein to speak about their lifestyle.
Brown explains his lifestyle as “faith based. Part of a faith belief. I followed through with it and this is kind of where it landed.” A clip from “Sister Wives” quotes “20 Years ago I married Meri and then Janelle and 16 years ago, I married Christine. I fell in love and then I fell in love again and then I fell in love again.” Where Brown has “landed” is with 13 kids and most recently four wives living in one house.
The “Today” interview could have easily been mistaken as a promotional press conference. Host Meredith Vieira asked the Browns questions about jealousy and how the wives go about sharing one man. There were no questions about the potential psychological affects of these relationships on their children. The fact that only one of these four marriages is legally recognized was quickly skimmed over. Instead the majority of the segment acted as an infomercial for the cause of polygamy.
Vieira allowed the Browns to portray themselves as victims in a harsh world that doesn’t understand. Kody Brown states that “When you're in a closed society, you feel kind of oppressed.” Janelle Brown, one of his wives, added “It's dangerous. We're hoping that we can create more transparency for those in our faith. There is a lot of fear in our culture about the government. Sometimes people in those instances, where there is things going wrong, they're more afraid of the government than they are the perpetrator or whatever is going on. We hope we can open this up.” His most recent wife, Robyn, concluded “There is a lot of bad media about polygamy and this way of life and we’re hoping to dispel this and say, hey, that's not us, that's not our family.”
”Today” offered no other side of the story. There were no experts brought in. There was no representation of an alternative side. The interview consisted of nine minutes of drumming up sympathy for polygamy. Vieira states “What defines a family has certainly changed throughout the years. These days families include single parents, step parents, single moms, even two moms or two dads.” Apparently “plural families” are just another item to be added to the long list of alternative lifestyles that the liberal media are trying to legitimize.
The Today Show is not the only news outlet to provide a platform for proponents of alternative lifestyles. The Culture and Media Institute has covered the elite media’s kindly disposition toward polyamory.
Are you, like me, ready to puke all over these sniveling snots? Like it or not people this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morality. Nowhere, as far as I can remember, does the Old Testament or New Testament condone polygamy. Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!
Now, I have longed maintained that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is their business and nobody else’s. Judgment is God’s, not mine. I can find their actions offensive to my beliefs but it still isn’t my call to judge their actions. That is God’s call to make. I have committed too many sins on my own to atone for.
What does frost this old G.I.’s arse is the fact that there are way too many namy bamy bleeding heart liberal news outlets to provide a platform for these people.
If I was a pastor and had a pulpit this is the type of lack of morality that exists in our world.
Three wives? At one time? I have 3 ex-wives and they were one at a time. That was all that I could handle.
Peacock Plugs Polygamy
Softball Today interview lets polygamists gripe about acceptance.
By Krista West
Culture and Media Institute
September 23, 2010
Do you have a spouse? Would you like another one? How about three more?
On Sept. 23, the Today Show interviewed Kody Brown and his four wives. Brown and his “plural family” are the stars of TLC’s new show “Sister Wives.” In the nine minute interview Brown and his wives were given free rein to speak about their lifestyle.
Brown explains his lifestyle as “faith based. Part of a faith belief. I followed through with it and this is kind of where it landed.” A clip from “Sister Wives” quotes “20 Years ago I married Meri and then Janelle and 16 years ago, I married Christine. I fell in love and then I fell in love again and then I fell in love again.” Where Brown has “landed” is with 13 kids and most recently four wives living in one house.
The “Today” interview could have easily been mistaken as a promotional press conference. Host Meredith Vieira asked the Browns questions about jealousy and how the wives go about sharing one man. There were no questions about the potential psychological affects of these relationships on their children. The fact that only one of these four marriages is legally recognized was quickly skimmed over. Instead the majority of the segment acted as an infomercial for the cause of polygamy.
Vieira allowed the Browns to portray themselves as victims in a harsh world that doesn’t understand. Kody Brown states that “When you're in a closed society, you feel kind of oppressed.” Janelle Brown, one of his wives, added “It's dangerous. We're hoping that we can create more transparency for those in our faith. There is a lot of fear in our culture about the government. Sometimes people in those instances, where there is things going wrong, they're more afraid of the government than they are the perpetrator or whatever is going on. We hope we can open this up.” His most recent wife, Robyn, concluded “There is a lot of bad media about polygamy and this way of life and we’re hoping to dispel this and say, hey, that's not us, that's not our family.”
”Today” offered no other side of the story. There were no experts brought in. There was no representation of an alternative side. The interview consisted of nine minutes of drumming up sympathy for polygamy. Vieira states “What defines a family has certainly changed throughout the years. These days families include single parents, step parents, single moms, even two moms or two dads.” Apparently “plural families” are just another item to be added to the long list of alternative lifestyles that the liberal media are trying to legitimize.
The Today Show is not the only news outlet to provide a platform for proponents of alternative lifestyles. The Culture and Media Institute has covered the elite media’s kindly disposition toward polyamory.
IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME THAT THIS WAS CHALLENGED.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEVER HAS HAD THE RIGHT TO STICK IT'S NOSE INTO THINGS LIKE THIS. IN THE DAYS OF THE REVOLT AGAINST ENGLAND SOME PASTORS PREACHED LIBERTY ON SUNDAY AND LED THEIR CONGREGATIONS INTO BATTLE ON MONDAY. IT GOT SO BAD IN THE SOUTH THAT BRITISH TROOPS BOARDED UP CHURCHES (PRESBYTERIANS MOSTLY) AND SET THEM ON FIRE, WITH THE CONGREGATIONS STILL INSIDE. IT HASN'T BEEN MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO THAT CHURCHES IN THE SOUTH WERE BEING TORCHED OUT OF FEAR AND HATRED. NOT MUCH UNLIKE WHAT THE BRITS DID IN THE 1770'S.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF RESPONSIBLE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE FETTERED BY ANY TYPE OF REGULATION BY THE FEDS.
Chuck Colson
Legislated Laryngitis
Fri, Sep, 24, 2010
It was a voice vote that silenced the voice of the church for generations.
In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was in the middle of a particularly bruising re-election battle. Two nonprofit groups had been especially troublesome to the senator, vocally opposing his candidacy.
So, on a hot summer day in Washington, D.C., Johnson slipped an amendment into the IRS 501(c)(3) code that governs nonprofit organizations in order to restrict their speech -- including the speech of churches. Johnson’s amendment stated that nonprofits could not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing and distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”
The penalty for such “participation?” Revocation of their tax-exempt status.
Without debate, the Senate held a quick voice vote on the amendment. As the chamber filled with a chorus of “Ayes,” the church became infected with an instant case of laryngitis, thanks to the Senator from Texas.
Before the Johnson Amendment, churches had a strong and vibrant voice in our political and cultural discourse. Their speech was not muzzled, and the church played an important role in speaking out and shaping public opinion on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, child labor, and civil rights.
However, since the passage of the amendment, the IRS has steadfastly maintained that any speech by churches about candidates for government office, including sermons from the pulpit, can result in the loss of tax exemption. Even though the IRS has never revoked the tax-exempt status of any church that has violated the amendment, it has had a chilling effect on the free speech of pastors across the nation.
It’s now time to ask the question: Who decides what the church can and cannot say?
Should it be the government? Or should it be the church?
The Alliance Defense Fund looked into the history of the Johnson Amendment and came to the conclusion that the church, and not the government, should determine whether or not it should support a political candidate or speak out on an important moral issue.
ADF concluded that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring the government to excessively and pervasively monitor the speech of churches to ensure they are not in violation of the amendment. It violates the Free Speech clause of the same amendment since it requires the government to discriminate against speech based solely on its content and makes a tax exemption conditional on speech. Finally, it violates the Free Exercise Clause because it substantially burdens a church’s free exercise of religion.
ADF is not arguing that churches should act like political action committees, or that pastors should routinely endorse or oppose candidates. What they are saying is that while many pastors and other church leaders may choose not—for various reasons—to talk about political issues from the pulpit, that should be their decision, not the IRS’s.
I agree with ADF. Decisions about what is preached from the pulpit of a church should not belong to the government but to the individual pastor and church itself. That is why I support Pulpit Freedom Sunday, to be observed on Sept. 26, in which pastors across America will take a courageous stand and boldly challenge the IRS’s restrictions on their freedom of speech when it comes to political candidates and issues. If the IRS threatens their tax-exempt status, ADF attorneys will file lawsuits on these pastors’ behalf with the hope that they will eventually lead to the Johnson Amendment being declared unconstitutional. ADF believes that if these cases ever come to trial, this will be the likely result.
Many Christians have an understandable fear of the overuse of litigation. But that does not prevent Christians from making appropriate use of litigation when warranted. The approach ADF is using is simply the only realistic way to have an unconstitutional IRS rule removed from the books when the IRS won’t do it on its own. Far from being a rash project put together by people eager to engage in litigation, this approach has been painstakingly thought out. It is the wisest and most effective course—indeed, the only one that has promise.
So take the occasion this week on Pulpit Freedom Sunday to celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and resolve never to weaken, never to be intimidated, and never to back down. As those of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration have affirmed, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.”
DUANE V. TEWINKEL
TSGT., USAF RETIRED
AMERICAN SCHOOL CLASS OF 62
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF RESPONSIBLE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE FETTERED BY ANY TYPE OF REGULATION BY THE FEDS.
Chuck Colson
Legislated Laryngitis
Fri, Sep, 24, 2010
It was a voice vote that silenced the voice of the church for generations.
In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was in the middle of a particularly bruising re-election battle. Two nonprofit groups had been especially troublesome to the senator, vocally opposing his candidacy.
So, on a hot summer day in Washington, D.C., Johnson slipped an amendment into the IRS 501(c)(3) code that governs nonprofit organizations in order to restrict their speech -- including the speech of churches. Johnson’s amendment stated that nonprofits could not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing and distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”
The penalty for such “participation?” Revocation of their tax-exempt status.
Without debate, the Senate held a quick voice vote on the amendment. As the chamber filled with a chorus of “Ayes,” the church became infected with an instant case of laryngitis, thanks to the Senator from Texas.
Before the Johnson Amendment, churches had a strong and vibrant voice in our political and cultural discourse. Their speech was not muzzled, and the church played an important role in speaking out and shaping public opinion on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, child labor, and civil rights.
However, since the passage of the amendment, the IRS has steadfastly maintained that any speech by churches about candidates for government office, including sermons from the pulpit, can result in the loss of tax exemption. Even though the IRS has never revoked the tax-exempt status of any church that has violated the amendment, it has had a chilling effect on the free speech of pastors across the nation.
It’s now time to ask the question: Who decides what the church can and cannot say?
Should it be the government? Or should it be the church?
The Alliance Defense Fund looked into the history of the Johnson Amendment and came to the conclusion that the church, and not the government, should determine whether or not it should support a political candidate or speak out on an important moral issue.
ADF concluded that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring the government to excessively and pervasively monitor the speech of churches to ensure they are not in violation of the amendment. It violates the Free Speech clause of the same amendment since it requires the government to discriminate against speech based solely on its content and makes a tax exemption conditional on speech. Finally, it violates the Free Exercise Clause because it substantially burdens a church’s free exercise of religion.
ADF is not arguing that churches should act like political action committees, or that pastors should routinely endorse or oppose candidates. What they are saying is that while many pastors and other church leaders may choose not—for various reasons—to talk about political issues from the pulpit, that should be their decision, not the IRS’s.
I agree with ADF. Decisions about what is preached from the pulpit of a church should not belong to the government but to the individual pastor and church itself. That is why I support Pulpit Freedom Sunday, to be observed on Sept. 26, in which pastors across America will take a courageous stand and boldly challenge the IRS’s restrictions on their freedom of speech when it comes to political candidates and issues. If the IRS threatens their tax-exempt status, ADF attorneys will file lawsuits on these pastors’ behalf with the hope that they will eventually lead to the Johnson Amendment being declared unconstitutional. ADF believes that if these cases ever come to trial, this will be the likely result.
Many Christians have an understandable fear of the overuse of litigation. But that does not prevent Christians from making appropriate use of litigation when warranted. The approach ADF is using is simply the only realistic way to have an unconstitutional IRS rule removed from the books when the IRS won’t do it on its own. Far from being a rash project put together by people eager to engage in litigation, this approach has been painstakingly thought out. It is the wisest and most effective course—indeed, the only one that has promise.
So take the occasion this week on Pulpit Freedom Sunday to celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and resolve never to weaken, never to be intimidated, and never to back down. As those of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration have affirmed, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.”
DUANE V. TEWINKEL
TSGT., USAF RETIRED
AMERICAN SCHOOL CLASS OF 62
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
TIME FOR A NEW REVOLUTION
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
So wrote the Founding Fathers in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. Independence from a distant, unfeeling, self-righteous ruling class. Independence from a political system that was so tyrannical that these men pledged their lives, honor and all that they had to give birth to a radical political idea: government for, by and of the people. Representative government. Not by elitists but by men, and now women, elected by the people. Not a democracy, warned against by the founders, but a federal form of government. Three separate branches to act as checks and balances, one against the other.
Believe it or not not all of those in the Colonies agreed. There were those who wished to remain tied to Mother England. Tories they were called. Elites who did not agree with rule by for and of 'we the people'
Well, those Tories are still alive and well and still doing their damnedest to destroy those ideas and concepts brought forward in those tumultuous days of the 1770's. Ideas and concepts that have refined and revised to give us the America I grew up loving. Ideas and concepts nurtured in battle and defended with blood sweat and tears by thousands of Americans for over 200 years.
Those Tories are now today's Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Communists and anyone, Left or Right wing, who believes that they know more than I do about how I should live my life. What is good, or bad, for me. What I should believe in, or not. These people,, groups and ideologies are an affront to what I believe this country is, and should be, about.
So wrote the Founding Fathers in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. Independence from a distant, unfeeling, self-righteous ruling class. Independence from a political system that was so tyrannical that these men pledged their lives, honor and all that they had to give birth to a radical political idea: government for, by and of the people. Representative government. Not by elitists but by men, and now women, elected by the people. Not a democracy, warned against by the founders, but a federal form of government. Three separate branches to act as checks and balances, one against the other.
Believe it or not not all of those in the Colonies agreed. There were those who wished to remain tied to Mother England. Tories they were called. Elites who did not agree with rule by for and of 'we the people'
Well, those Tories are still alive and well and still doing their damnedest to destroy those ideas and concepts brought forward in those tumultuous days of the 1770's. Ideas and concepts that have refined and revised to give us the America I grew up loving. Ideas and concepts nurtured in battle and defended with blood sweat and tears by thousands of Americans for over 200 years.
Those Tories are now today's Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Communists and anyone, Left or Right wing, who believes that they know more than I do about how I should live my life. What is good, or bad, for me. What I should believe in, or not. These people,, groups and ideologies are an affront to what I believe this country is, and should be, about.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
WHY THE TITLE "IF I HAD A HAMMER"
Back in the mid-sixties Peter, Paul and Mary had many hits. One of my favorites was, "If I Had A Hammer". Being a some what young and naive G.I. I did not know the back ground of the song. I don't think most of us in the barracks even cared. It was, is, a great song and it struck a responsive chord in my heart and soul. It still does.
I don't like what I see happening in this beautiful country that I love so dearly and I am going to use my HAMMER to hammer out against the ills that afflict my beloved country.
"If I Had a Hammer (The Hammer Song)" is a song written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays. It was written in 1949 in support of the progressive movement, and was first recorded by The Weavers, a folk music quartet composed of Seeger, Hays, Ronnie Gilbert and Fred Hellerman, and then by Peter, Paul and Mary.
IF I HAD A HAMMER (The Hammer Song)
words and music by Lee Hays and Pete Seeger
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
©1958, 1962 (renewed), 1986 (renewed)
TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)
I don't like what I see happening in this beautiful country that I love so dearly and I am going to use my HAMMER to hammer out against the ills that afflict my beloved country.
"If I Had a Hammer (The Hammer Song)" is a song written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays. It was written in 1949 in support of the progressive movement, and was first recorded by The Weavers, a folk music quartet composed of Seeger, Hays, Ronnie Gilbert and Fred Hellerman, and then by Peter, Paul and Mary.
IF I HAD A HAMMER (The Hammer Song)
words and music by Lee Hays and Pete Seeger
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
©1958, 1962 (renewed), 1986 (renewed)
TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)