AARP & Other Liberals Spearhead Charge For Clintoncare II

As groups get bigger I swear their collective intelligence decreases. Nothing could be a truer example of this than one of the largest groups in America, the American Association of Retired Persons. Often affectionately known as the AARP I prefer to call them the Anti-American Retired Persons because I believe in truth in advertising.

Here you have a group that on one hand uses the power of capitalism. They flaunt the purchasing power of their vast membership to negotiate with companies all over the globe to get special discounts and incentives for their members in return for promoting these same companies to their members. But on the other hand they pimp anti-American ideas such as socialism and collectivism.

Case and point, the AARP has been running ads featuring cute, and dare I say naive, children who are reading from their given script and pleading with Americans to support candidates that promise universal health insurance coverage. They’re basically promoting Democrats and other liberals.

It’s no real big surprise. Their constituents are on two of the largest unconstitutional programs ever devised, namely Social Security and Medicare. You knew it could only be a matter of time before they decided that they needed to try and expand that base and their power.

So this push by the AARP just ahead of Hillary’s big announcement of her new and improved socialist plan for America shocks none.

Forget that she already tried to float this idea past American citizens in nineties and that it was soundly rejected. But hey, try, try again right?

So here comes Senatorette Clinton this week giving us Clintoncare Part Deux.

All you need to know about Hillary Clinton is that she said of her grand scheme, "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed”. The key words being “at this point”. You got to love the way they couch their plans and telegraph their future intentions don’t you?

At this point there is no punishment. How about tomorrow? Well, we’ll get back to you...

You just wait for those “future” plans Comrade Hillary slyly discusses. Because what is going to happen if Americans do not join? If even one person chooses that path then the whole claim of universal health insurance (not care mind you) falls apart and you can bet your bottom dollar that all sorts of punishments will be created to deal with those people who won’t fall in line.

Clinton did however slip up and let out what she though at least one punishment for not joining Hillarycare will be. She envisions a day when, “you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination”.

So join or you can’t work?

On a side note, and unfortunately for Hillary, her claim about vaccinations and public schools is not true. For example in Pennsylvania you do not have to be vaccinated to attend public school. So I am not sure where Hillary is getting her “facts” from. Perhaps she is just making things up again? She seems to do that quite often and has shown that she is certainly not above letting the “facts” get in the way of a good story.

I apologize to those of you who have decided not to vaccinate your children. For I am sure I’ve just given Comrade Clinton a new item to add to her list of “things to order the unwashed masses to do”. After all, mommy knows best!

Hillary Clinton also said of her rehashed socialist agenda that her plan, “expands personal choice and increases competition to get costs down.” You have to love how liberals claim that having no choice is actually a “choice”. Mandating that you must participate in this plan as in her own self-professed future vision, if you want to work is, is somehow a “choice”?

In further nanny state fashion, Senatorette Clinton thinks that she can wield the power of government to coerce people to act the way she desires them to. Most notably, she plans to use the tax code. She has said of her plan, “We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." And what if Americans disagree? Well, were back to the “at this point” clarification of there being no “punitive” measures. This is the same government that used the tax code for years to punish couples for getting married. Remember that.

The facts are, that beyond talking points Hillary Clinton still has given little details about her health insurance (not health care) for all plan. But that reality hasn’t stopped those who fawn over Marxist ideas from touting Senatorette Clinton as having “detailed” her plans. Break it all down and here is what it comes down to; government nebulously mandating how insurance companies and private industries operate and even how the citizenry must behave. And of course, it would be “paid for” in part by the left’s favorite past time; raising taxes. Don’t complain. Don’t you know that it’s their money?

What? You disagree? Be careful. The re-education camps await you.

If you are an insurance company and don’t want to insure pre-existing conditions because you are rightfully scared of people only buying insurance after they have been diagnosed with a disease only to drop it once they have been treated, taken tens of thousands of dollars in care and before they have paid enough in premiums to even cover the cost, oh well! Too bad. Government says otherwise, so you will comply if you want to be in the health insurance business.

Freedom to contract and freedom of association be damned. It’s just not the liberal way.

The truth they are trying to hide is that everyone in America has “health care” if they seek it out. What everyone does not have is “health insurance” to help defray the costs when they do. Nor should they. Insurance is a luxury. Not everyone has a 50’ yacht either and I doubt many would suggest government should provide such for the people that do not.

People like Clinton claim that we need universal coverage because the uninsured cost the rest of us in higher premiums and other costs. But who do you think is going to pay for those that would be covered under this plan but don’t have insurance now when the government runs it? The Tooth Fairy? Or will the money just come from the magical, mystical money tree Hillary has in her back yard? Heck no! The cost of the current “uninsured” will still be carried by the rest of us. It is just a shell game to try and hide that fact and grant more power to the government. Hence why she needs to raise taxes.

Clinton can’t even discuss her ideas without the obligatory double speak saying, “My Republican opponents will try to equate healthcare for all Americans with government-run healthcare.” Well, uh yeah Comrade Clinton because it is! If the government is mandating that all Americans have to have healthcare, creating laws regarding how the system works, dictating what you must do once in the program and enforcing that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies do what government says they must in order to cover all Americans then it is “government-run healthcare” by default. When you pass a law it isn’t a “recommendation” or a “request”. It’s a law! Did you ever take a civics course that you actually passed? Because this is pretty basic stuff here!

But then again, this is from the frontrunner for the nomination of the party that claims that it is a “pro-choice” yet is forcing you to pay into a government retirement plan. And let’s not forget that the party she represents frequently gets endorsements from the Communist Party USA for their presidential candidates. Are those little red lights in your brain going off yet?

Clinton said of her plan, “I believe everyone – every man, woman and child – should have quality, affordable healthcare in America. I intend to be the president who will do that.” Well, that’s all well and good that you believe that. Now do you mind pointing to where in the Constitution you and your fellow travelers are granted the power by “We the People” to mandate how we manage our own choices with regards to healthcare? Are you going to point out to us, finally after all these years of waiting patiently, where you are given the power to dictate what price something should be and hence its “affordability”? Or are you just going to ignore that major problem with your plans like you always do?

Uh huh. Silence. That’s what I thought.

We already have Medicaid for the “poor” who supposedly can’t afford health insurance and Medicare for the elderly who are dubbed by the left as too stupid to save for their own needs after retirement and Congress wants to make families with an income of up to $80,000 eligible for SCHIP. How much more do we have to give?

Once again, please let myself and other Americans that still actually believe in liberty have real choice and chose to pass on this and chose not to contribute to the program. But then again, that “choice” isn’t one of the government approved “choices” now is it?

For the left, “choice” is simply a mandate from them. And you will abide by it “or else”. If not they will eventually get you with future punishments that don’t exist at this time while they stick the camel’s nose under the tent today.

"The sad reality is that the uninsured don't just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on the rest of us," Clinton said. And why is that? Is it because politicians and the courts let them impose these problems on us by allowing them to get out of paying their debts, bailing them out with tax payer dollars and maybe only at best paying a fraction of the cost to those that provide their services thus increasing costs to the rest of us? There once was a time in America when if you owed a debt you paid it you either paid it, rotted in jail or were ordered to work off you debts to those you owed them to.

But then again, hard work scares liberals. Responsibility is too much to ask them to promote. So those concepts are certainly not on the table. But government mandates? Heck, that’s the way they think they can create utopia!

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative and the owner and Lead Editor of the American Conservative Daily Blog and The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly articles can be read at Liberty Reborn.

Why is Christian Rock Music So Popular? by Sam Wilkinson

"Christian Rock", a title often ridiculed at by traditional rock artists, enthusiasts & critics alike is gaining popularity and stamping its place as a sort after genre for the young generation of head-banging, mosh-pitting gurus! Didn't Christian rock die a couple of years ago, you ask? Christian rock music is growing faster than ever before with Daily News of Christian Rock Music, new artists & albums streaming across the Internet and pumping the airways continuously every day. So where did this God Rock come from? I mean this is new right?

This type of rock music wasn't around 20 years ago, was it? Well I didn't think so until recently, the reality is Christian music or should I say Christian rock music has been around apparently from the dawn of creation! So why seeing it today all the time? Where were they hiding and what happened to the voice of eternal punishment for those participating in anything other than a church hymn or Sunday school choir? The chastity belt of modern Christian rock is alive and kicking. There are many religious organisations who oppose this form of music, I will talk more about this opposition later.

Most Christians are in favor of this "movement" feeling that Christian rock music is another way to reach people with the importance of the Christian faith. So why the controversy?, what is so different about secular rock music in comparison to Christian rock? Many have asked this question and instead of quoting Mr. Bob Dylan "the answer is blowing in the wind", I thought I would look into this more closely and check out the facts and see why there is so much "opposition" to the sounds of "thumping grace". After reviewing many rock & heavy metal music bands and performances and then compared them to their Christian counterparts, I did see differences but not many! The stage performance was very similar with the exception of secular heavy metal revealing more of a dark or satanic side at times in general there was little if any change in production or presentation from Christian rock to standard or Non-Christian music. The only real difference I could see was in the lyrical content, with Christian rock music singing words from the Bible and preaching family values.

So why was Christian rock music inward for so many years, seemingly hiding in the shadows from more conservative members of the Christian community? Well apparently they weren't hiding at all, it's just that I like many people didn't even know they were around back then! Good old fashioned Christian rock bands like Petra, Stryper, Bloodgood, Whitecross and Tourniquet have been rocking Christians and non Christians alike for generations.

The voice of rock abstinence is still screaming louder than ever in some Christian circles although seemingly falling on deaf ears of a Christian Rocker community that grows bigger every day. Who opposes this Christian liberation? Who else but other Christians! It seems some denominations of who have not advanced to modern day sounds are Bible bashing these Christian rock music head bangers with eternal consequences for their "lack of understanding". The most dramatic example I came across was the seventh day adventist (SDA) church who proclaim that Christian rock music is quote "Devil music". The SDA church preach that all rock music has the "beat of the devil" borrowed from primate heathen rituals, beating in time with the body's "natural rhythms". I found it hard to understand that anyone could think this way at first, but indeed it is true and the SDA church is serious about stamping out any and all rock music, or anything for that matter that has a drum beat!

About the Author

Sam J Wilkinson works as a volunteer webmaster of the Christian Rock Music Site ColdandUgly.net, which has up to date information about Christian music & artistis, aswell as other Christian culture news & events. http://coldandugly.net

You're In Bad Hands With Nanny State by J.J. Jackson

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiography that, "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." And boy was he ever right on that. Because since the time he wrote those words we have seen what happens when governments dictate to the people how to "sow" and when to "reap". What's that? You want a list? Ok, how about any number of the currently floundering European style socialist states, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and the former Soviet Union for starters.

But despite all these examples, today talk of expanding government here in American into realms reserved by the people as their own to control dominates society. Whether it is whispers of socialized healthcare where citizens will be required to regiment their doctors visits based on what a lonely bureaucrat in Washington decides or questions about what the government will do to bail out people with poor credit, shoddy finances and living beyond their means after they take out loans they could not afford to pay back, there is a continuing push to expand the umbrella of the Nanny State over each and everyone of us. Yes, that push is to encompass even those of us that are able to function in a civilized society and interact with other people independent of this control. Because without us in that latter category being onboard, those that would benefit from such policies would not be able to have them.

We're the producers. We're the ones from which the money to fund such failed ideas flows. We are the new slave class.

Shocked that I would say that? Don't be. A slave is defined as "a person held in servitude as the chattel of another" (source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). In other words, a slave is someone who is bound to, and has the fruits of their labor, taken by another for their own betterment. And through the years since the founding of this country, I dare say that we have come full circle on the issue of slavery.

In the early days, plantation owners imported slaves from Africa and other places around the globe to work for them. Justifications for this were of course given. They ranged from the theory of the inferiority of particular races to appeals that because they were housed, fed, clothed and protected they were not really "slaves" at all but instead were being properly compensated for their work despite being held against their will. All were bogus and asinine. And all were concocted by men to serve their own interests.

Today we have new justifications for the enslavement of productive citizens which range from claims that the poor and downtrodden cannot better themselves without help (assuming they are ignoramuses) to the rich stole the money they have earned anyway on the backs of others which they have cheated. Regardless, all are still bogus and asinine.

Allowing one to reap the benefits of another's work is an abomination no matter the scale of other atrocities that come with such acts. You may obtain what others have through the grace of charity or the free exchange of goods and services but you cannot demand anything from others at the point of a gun. Those that are productive should never be enslaved to those that discover a way to exploit that productivity be they the rich or the poor.

One need only look at the federal budget to see this new form of slavery in effect with the amount of money that is spent on programs such as Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security and on and on. All take wealth and income from those that are producing and give it to someone that either is not producing any wealth or income at all or not producing it at a rate they or a bureaucrat believes that they should be.

Each of these programs, and so many more, are funded by productive Americans under penalty of punishment should they not acquiesce. Try telling the government that you are going to refuse to allow your money to go for the enrichment of others and see what happens. The government does have the power to do nasty things to you and deprive you of your own liberty should you refuse them.

Color me a little confused because I was under the impression that after the 13th Amendment was ratified, slavery and involuntary servitude were outlawed in the United States except as a punishment for a crime. So what crime have I and millions of other Americans committed? Simply the crime of being productive and working harder than others?

How absolutely Stalin-esque. Heaven forbid that both myself and my wife work, that I hold down a second job running my own business and that such a work ethic should be seen as so unsavory as to merit the punishment of having my work, my wages and my productivity confiscated by government force to serve others.

Health insurance is not a right. If you get sick and require treatment but have no insurance and cannot find someone willing to treat you for free through charity you have to do what the rest of us do. You have to work hard to pay off that debt. Some of us pay it off in advance by purchasing insurance while others do not and chose to pay after the fact. If you are part of the later group, you should not receive any sort of special treatment under the laws of this nation and be able to coerce others to pay your way.

Being able to retire when you hit 65 years of age is not a right. If you are 70 years old and have not a penny to your name and have to work until you are 80 you are no different than those of us that get up every day and put on clothes and head off to work except perhaps that you may have lived longer. The fact that you have not put aside enough or been able produce enough wealth in your life to retire is not someone else's problem.

If you borrow more money than you are able to manage and payback who are you to demand that others compensate and forgive you for your bad choices and bail you out? You may ask. But you may not demand.

If you rebuild or buy a home in a flood plain or that is 12 feet below sea level after it has already been flooded once, twice or even three times please explain to me why your failure to understand the laws of nature is anyone else's problem but yours? It is not your right to demand the taxpayers buy you out or cover your cost to rebuild.

I know, it's cruel to say such things right? That's an easy canard to avoid the issue however.

When I lived in Philadelphia I did not buy a house that I could not afford. I lived in an apartment which also was not cheap. I did not purchase a car that I could not make payments on. My wife and I drove used cars that were from the previous decade. I did not go and get a big screen television in lieu of a hearty meal and I certainly did not demand that others pay for my health insurance because I believed it was too much for me to pay my for my own despite the huge chunk that it was taking from my paycheck.

Demanding the Nanny State provide us with insurances and the often touted "safety net" for every aspect of our lives only makes those that pay for it subservient to the whims of unkind masters in Washington telling us when to "reap" and "sow". We've seen how well the government spends money to know that such is probably not a good task to demand of them.

In Britain they are talking about denying health services under their socialized system to stem costs. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina we see the waste and corruption of portions of New Orleans which are still wrecks; a monument to the Great Society. We've seen the massive pork barrel spending of millions on bridges to nowhere.

How much more of money do we really want the government to spend? Of course if you are on the receiving end of that money you probably are shouting "MORE! MORE!" without a care for where it comes from or the burden it places upon others.

I personally would rather live my own life thank you. Perhaps you enjoy others dictating to you how to live. I do not. So is there a form I can sign to opt out of the Nanny State? Or are you going to hold a gun to my head and force me to join because you know without me and millions of others like me you won't have your precious benefits?

Can you at least send me a thank you card after you take hold of my productivity? How about flowers? Anything to show your appreciation would do. But most favorable of all would be to leave me out of your grand plans.

About the Author

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts and Evil Conservative T-shirts

Earmark Reform Is Needed

Today, business has included individual members sharing out favors in appropriations, and further bills through earmarks. The Americans should have a right to know more than who funded special interest legislation. One needs earmark reform that puts an end to particular interest earmarking, and offers solutions to stop the practice of earmark abuse.

It does not mean that earmarks are essentially bad. Some serve significant public intentions. But, they should be in the open so that all can see, and evaluate. Their use should be considerably limited.

Earlier, earmark reform was individually passed by the Senate and the House. However, they left the conclusion for conference committee. Surprisingly, after the last session finished, the bill was worked out confidentially. It was quite unexpected.

It seems that Congress has obtained God-like supremacy. They move healthcare centers hundreds of miles for billing purposes. For instance, a healthcare center in Kingston was moved to 80 miles from its present location in NY City. Hospitals face very high costs there. Similarly, in rural Green Bay, a hospital was moved 200 miles somewhere in urban Chicago.

What is required is a basic improvement of the budget, and expenditure process in Washington. Until that is ensued and we get the control over spending, Congress will continue to stake bigger claims on other people’s hard-earned money.

It is the time when candidates who are in presidential race should come up with something to tackle earmark reform. You should, therefore, go through the poll results to know which candidate is actually keen at solving this issue.

LATEST NEWS ON PRESIDENT POLLS

Congressional Careerism and War

Pete Domenici, Mitch McConnell, and Lamar Alexander, all of whom are Republican senators up for re-election next year, have decided to part ways with the president on Iraq. McConnell, in his home state of Kentucky recently said, "The majority of the public has decided the Iraq effort is not worth it. That puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act because public opinion in a democracy is not irrelevant."

The response to McConnell, the ranking Republican in the Senate, is that when it comes to conducting wars, public opinion is, in fact, largely irrelevant.

This isn't to say that what "the public" thinks doesn't have consequences. We can spook our representatives into de-funding the war if we want, as we did in Vietnam, just when things seemed to be looking promising. Back then, our information sources were essentially limited to Walter Cronkite, who declared the war lost. And so, by choice, it was. Today Cronkite couldn't get away with summarily declaring an end to our military presence in Iraq. There are too many other sources of information to render one man's opinion impenetrable. The trouble is that more Americans believe that Iraq is unwinnable--not because of a monolithic press, but precisely because when it comes to war, there is too much transparency. War is ugly, and the more we see, the less palatable the idea of continuing to fight becomes.

Embedding members of the press seemed like a good idea at the time: the object, those unfamiliar with press tactics thought, was to show our soldiers' hard work and compassion. And indeed, we have heard anecdotes from anti-war liberals on occasion about the soldier who saved an Iraqi child at the risk of his own life.

Pacifists, recalling the shame of their obloquy toward soldiers returning from Vietnam, have learned the lesson not to trash the troops. Their strategy is to minimize the necessity of the mission and of our progress. And so Nancy Pelosi's crowd maintains, with a straight face, that we owe it to our troops to remove them from the irrelevant, unending chaos in Iraq.

The authoritative last word that they point to is the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Republican James Baker who, as secretary of state, said that the first war against Saddam was simply about "jobs." Baker, whose greatest accomplishment in the last decade was to defend President Bush against Al Gore, the opponent who wouldn't go away, has never been a fan of pre-emption.

Whatever Baker's mindset, though, the conclusions of the ISG deserve proper examination. "Iran should stem the flood of arms and training to Iraq," the report concludes. "Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flood of funding, insurgents and terrorist in and out of Iraq." And al Qaeda, to show its remorse, should hold a bake sale to aid families of fallen Iraqi innocents.

President Bush's most maddening trait has been that he is too busy fighting the war to properly and regularly explain it. Propaganda plays a big part in any war, and the word from Bush's opponents, which include anti-war Democrats and pro-re-election Republicans is that we are losing. Senators McConnell, Alexander and Domenici probably know this isn't the case. But they see stagnantly low public approval numbers with regard to Iraq.

It's anybody's guess, of course, whether those numbers will stay low through next November; that, though, isn't the point. How has it come to calculating our next move based on poling data?

The answer is that wearing out one's welcome in Washington causes all sorts of trouble, mostly on the domestic front, in the form of pork barrel spending. But it shouldn't be lost on us that congressional careerism can cloud one's judgment about how to behave while we're at war.

About the Author
Will Anderson
clmoss1981@yahoo.com
More Details about congressional public opinion here.

Will Anderson is a talk show host in Huntsville, AL. His conservative valeus, quick wit and uncanny grasp of the issues have made Will the most listened to local host on WVNN since Sean Hannity.

The Conservative Movement - Suggested Organizations and Websites

Decided that you want to become more active in the conservative movement? Well, here are some suggested web sites you may find helpful:

1. aBetterEarth.Org

aBetterEarth.org is a special project of the Institute for Humane Studies, a non-profit educational organization. Affiliated with George Mason University, IHS educates and supports college students and recent graduates interested in the classical liberal tradition of individual liberty, voluntarism, and peace.

The project is funded by individuals and foundations who share a positive vision of the world. While many evironmental groups advocate solutions that may have unintended -- or intended -- consequences, aBetterEarth.Org believes in three overriding concepts: local control and property rights; actions have unintended and harmful consequences; and the fact that the earth is a dynamic place.

The IHS staff members believe that "people often behave as good stewards of the environment when they control the resources at hand." They also believe "government policy, because it is so far reaching, can have some of most dramatic unintended consequences, leaving the biggest footprint on the environment."

2. Accuracy in Academia

Accuracy in Academia, a nonprofit research group based in Washington, D. C., wants schools to return to their traditional mission-the quest for truth. To promote this goal, AIA documents and publicizes political bias in education in Campus Report, its monthly newsletter.

CR articles focus on: the use of classroom and/or university resources to indoctrinate students; discrimination against students, faculty or administrators based on political or academic beliefs; and campus violations of free speech.

Accuracy in Academia posts more frequent updates on all of these stories and issues on its companion web site.

Celebrated author and columnist Thomas Sowell said, "If sanity ever returns to the academic world, part of the credit will go to a small newspaper called Campus Report, which has exposed innumerable incidents of brainwashing replacing education on college campuses, storm trooper tactics being accepted and rewarded by 'responsible' college administrators, and academic and behavioral double standards being applied to the group to which one belongs, rather than one's own behavior or performance."

3. Accuracy in Media

The granddaddy of media watchdogs, Accuracy in Media is credited with exposing American news media bias to the world.. It's also one of the most widely quoted organizations in the country.

Accuracy In Media is a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.

AIM's website offers visitors an abundance of resources including up-to-the-minute press releases regarding incidents of media bias, inaccuracy or a journalist's hidden agenda. There are also columns written by AIM staff and guest columnists, special reports and briefings. Internet visitors can also signup for e-mail alerts and reports from AIM.

4. Acton Institute

The Board of Director and staff at the Acton Institute believe that their primary mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.

Acton organizes seminars aimed at educating religious leaders of all denominations, business executives, entrepreneurs, university professors, and academic researchers in economics principles, and in the connection that can exist between virtue and economic thinking.

The institute's website contains editorials, research studies, public policy statements and information on their seminars and conferences. Their conferences are held primarily in the United States, but they also conduct some conferences in Europe and Latin America.

Acton also publishes a journal called Religion & Liberty that engages the intellectual reader on issues in the areas of religion, politics, economics, literature, and culture. They also publish the Journal of Morality and Markets, that is an academic journal dedicated to examining ideas in the unique interdisciplinary niche that brings together economics, theology, and philosophy.

5. AgapePress

AgapePress gives readers the real lowdown on political and cultural issue of concern to Christians with stories you won't read in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, or your local newspapers. The news content available from AgapePress focuses on issues that have moral, social, and political implications, and is written from a Christian worldview -- something you won't find in the secular news media.

Besides up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news stories, AgapePress has a team of respected columnists that includes Jane Jimenez, Dr. Matt Friedman, Joe Murray, and Brad Locke as well as guest commentary by some of the nation's top conservative commentators.

"They attempt to shine the light of the gospel on such highly volatile topics as pornography, the homosexual agenda, education, the pro-life debate, and the influence of the entertainment industry, to name just a few," said Rev. Mark H. Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.

For the best news and commentary from a Christian perspective, visit: http://www.agapepress.org

6. The Alliance Defense Fund

The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. The ADF was founded in 1994 by 35 ministries for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering Christian allies, recognizing that together, they can accomplish far more than any single ministry can alone.

One of the ADF's guiding principles is that they are committed to anticipating and meeting the legal needs of those dedicated to preserving religious liberty. In civil litigation cases, the ADF provides some of the nation's top trial lawyers and First Amendment experts to work pro bono on cases that have an impact of Christians' liberties.

The ADF believes it is a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values.

7. The American Conservative Union

Founded in 1964, the American Conservative Union is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization. ACU's purpose is to communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization.

Besides their monitoring of US Senators and House members, the ACU's most significant efforts include fighting to keep OSHA off the backs of small businesses; opposing the Panama Canal giveaway; challenging the SALT treaties; supporting aid to freedom fighters in communist countries; promoting the confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court; advocating near-term deployment of strategic defenses; and battling against higher taxes and wasteful government spending.

In 1994, when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton attempted to shove Socialize Medicine down the throats of Americans, through its Citizens against Rationing Health coalition, sponsorship of national town meetings, and Health Care Truth Tour, ACU spearheaded the conservative response to the Clintons' health-care proposals, which eventually stopped "Hillary Care" in its tracks.

They have arguably one of the best conservative websites on the internet. Visitors may check on their senator's or House representative's record, read the latest commentary by noted columnists, read their award-winning publication Conservative Battleline, or discover how to become an active part the conservative movement.