When Persecution is Documented But Not Addressed—What Comes Next?

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) issued its 2026 annual report on March 4, 2026, highlighting persecution hotspots around the world today.  Yet a critical question remains: Will the US government take that report and turn it into effective policies to help the persecuted?

Todd Nettleton with The Voice of the Martyrs USA explains that USCIRF’s annual report was meant to be “step one” in a process established by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.  “That [report] goes to the State Department, and the State Department ultimately makes the determinations of Countries of Particular Concern, Special Watch List, [etc],” Nettleton says.

However, the US State Department has not issued an International Religious Freedom Report (IRF) for two years.

“It’s like, okay, is this [USCIRF report] all we’re going to get?  Is this the end of the process?  Or is this as it was designed, ‘step one’ and now we’ll see what the State Department does with that?” Nettleton says.

The IRF report from the State Department provides practical tools for the US to support religious freedom around the world.  Among other outcomes that respect human rights, this freedom can remove barriers to the gospel spreading.  

“I want to express appreciation for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, the work that they do throughout the year, to identify, to document, to shine a light on violations of religious freedom around the world,” says Nettleton.  “It helps us here at Voice of the Martyrs, when sort of the government is saying the same things that we’re saying about, in our case, only about Christians being persecuted.”

For example, the Commission has recommended that the US redesignate Nicaragua as a Country of Particular Concern.  Nicaragua is also a country that VOM USA has designated as “Restricted” this year for its intensifying persecution of Christians.

“It is a country where pastors have been arrested.  Pastors have been kicked out of the country.  The government is using technology purchased from China to monitor people digitally — monitor where they are, monitor what they’re doing,” says Nettleton.  “Most of us don’t know that that’s happening.”

If you’re a US citizen, consider contacting your government representatives and expressing your interest in seeing this State report issued.  But no matter where home is for you, you can respond in prayer as you consider the Commission’s annual report findings.

“There are 29 countries, so you could literally pray through that list every month and use this as a sort of government-issued prayer guide on behalf of our persecuted brothers and sisters,” says Nettleton.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

POTUS Shares Letter from Franklin Graham

President (POTUS) Donald Trump shared a letter on Palm Sunday that had been sent to him by evangelist Franklin Graham last year, which urged him to seriously consider his eternal state, accept Jesus Christ as his Savior, and cease trusting in his own works—if he hopes to go to Heaven.

In a letter dated October 15, 2025, Graham congratulated Trump for securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and the return of remaining Israeli hostages, which he praised as “incredible accomplishments” and “an answer to prayer” amid Trump’s “historic” leadership.  He also praised Trump for being a peacemaker, noting that Jesus promised blessing for such figures.

Graham went on to exhort the POTUS to remember that, despite his many accomplishments and apparent blessings, neither he nor anyone else can earn favor before God and salvation from Hell apart from trusting in the righteousness and atoning death of Jesus Christ, performed on their behalf.

“This week you commented to the media that you might not be heaven bound,” Graham wrote, referring to remarks Trump made last October, walking back previous comments he made last August suggesting he might earn a place in paradise by inking peace deals.

Trump’s initial comments prompted a flurry of theological debate among his Evangelical supporters, many of whom worried that Trump maintained a faulty view of the Gospel, despite hearing it many times and narrowly escaping death multiple times.

“Maybe you responded in jest, but it is an important issue to know for certain that your soul is secure and will spend eternity in the presence of God,” Graham told Trump in his letter.  “The only One who can save us from Hell is Jesus Christ.  You can't save yourself; I can’t save myself.”

Graham, whose father, the late Rev. Billy Graham, preached in person to more people than anyone in history, warned that “good works, prominence, [and] success” are powerless to gain entry into Heaven, adding, “The only way to Heaven is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.”

Though Graham was accused by some X users and media outlets of promising Trump he was going to Heaven, Graham’s letter clearly presented Trump’s salvation as conditional upon his faith, which he noted is inextricable with repentance.

“God requires us to turn from our sins and, by faith, believe in our heart that Jesus came to earth, died on the cross for our sins, was buried, and God raised Him to life on the third day,” said Graham.  “If you accept that by faith and invite Him to come into your heart, you ARE heaven bound, I promise you,” he added.

Graham closed his letter by promising prayer for Trump and quoting the Gospel message from Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Trump shared Graham’s letter amid concerns even from some of the president’s staunchest supporters regarding his increasingly mean-spirited attacks in response to the suffering and death of his enemies.

Trump drew scorn for celebrating the death of former special counsel and FBI Director Robert Mueller earlier this month, provoked Christian rebuke for attacking his political foes during the National Prayer Breakfast in February and prompted two-thirds disapproval from Republicans for mocking the late Hollywood director Rob Reiner after his own son gruesomely murdered him and his wife in December.

During his eulogy for the late Charlie Kirk at his memorial last September, Trump admitted that he “disagreed” with Kirk when it comes to forgiving one’s enemies, noting, “I hate my opponent.  And I don’t want the best for them.”

“Erika [Kirk], you can talk to me and the whole group, but maybe they can convince me that that’s not right, but I can’t stand my opponent,” he added to Kirk’s widow, who famously forgave her husband’s murderer during the same memorial.

Despite some accusations of cynicism from detractors on social media, Graham’s letter drew approval from figures such as evangelist and Trump supporter Sean Feucht, who expressed hope last fall that the 79-year-old president’s remarks could indicate that he is at least thinking about eternity and questioning where he will spend it.

“He has no shortage of people that have clearly explained to him on phone calls, on conference calls, in person ... about the forgiveness of sins, repentance, by grace alone you can be saved, not by works,” Feucht said at the time.  “He’s heard it many, many times.  However, I do think it is amazing that he is acknowledging now that his good works alone — all his wealth, all his fame, all his stature, all his accolades, all his power — is not enough to get him to Heaven, and he’s right.  And that takes humility,” said Feucht.  “I believe God is moving his heart closer than ever before,” he continued, adding that he is praying that Trump would have a public conversion experience before he leaves office.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Almost Unanimously, 1,200 TX School Districts Vote Against Allowing Prayer and Bible Reading Time in School

In Texas, the law allows public school districts to provide time for students and educators to pray or read the Bible or other religious texts during school.

Known as “SB11,” the statute said that school boards had to vote by March 1 whether to adopt a policy requiring schools in their district to provide a period of the school day during which students—at the direction of their parents—may pray and read their Bible or other religious text.  Under the law, such religious activity would occur in a designated space, pursuant to explicit parental permission, and would never be broadcast over the school public address system.

Implementing this policy was an opportunity for school districts to show how respectful they are to the presence of religion on a public-school campus.  Doing so would be a clear acknowledgement of tolerance and inclusion of religion, especially for so many students and teachers whose faith is a central part of their lives.

But most school districts missed a key opportunity to offer something of great benefit to their students and employees.  The vast majority voted against implementing the measure.  Only 15 out of 1,200 school districts in the Lone Star State voted in favor.

Many districts rejected the optional policy due to “data and safety concerns,” since, for accountability purposes, particularly in larger schools, there would need to be a record of the students who participated in the prayer time.  Apparently, the “record” of students participating in biology class poses no threat, but students praying and reading religious texts does?

Other school districts across the state invoked the tired phrase, “separation of Church and State,” in order to scare school officials into enforcing a public-school campus entirely sanitized of religion. These vocal opponents of SB11 fret that respecting and tolerating the religious practices of public-school students would cause division, steal valuable instructional time, or even “squeeze in Christian religious opportunities and principles into the school day itself.”

That was the concern of one political scientist interviewed on the topic whose hand wringing revealed she hoped school officials would reject the tolerant-of-religion approach of SB11.  After all, the “scientist” intoned these are “educational professionals, and they know what their principal task is, it’s to teach these students (to) prepare for adult life.”

Except that is emphatically not the duty of “educational professionals.”  U.S. Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds said more than 100 years ago, it is “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.”  That may mean employing professional educators to do so, but, as Justice McReynolds recognized just two years later, “The child is not the mere creature of the state.”  If he were, then perhaps “educational professionals” might determine their future.

Rather, Justice McReynolds continued, “those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”  (To be clear, by “those who nurture him” Justice McReynolds meant the student’s parents.)

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the notion that parents drive the educational (and religious) upbringing of their students, declaring that “the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom.”

And, so, SB11 rested on the solid legal footing as one way of schools accommodating “the natural duty of the parent” in directing the religious upbringing of their children.  Can we not tolerate a few moments for students to pray and read their religious text, and adopt a policy that supports it?

A state-enforced secularism lacks neutrality to one of the most central aspects of the human condition: religion.  Wouldn’t a welcoming, tolerant public school recognize the important place religion holds in the lives of students across the State of Texas?

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court further rejected the idea that the government must suppress private religious expression in public schools to avoid violating the Establishment Clause.  The Court emphasized that the Constitution protects private religious exercise, even in a public setting.

Rather, the Court noted, “The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”

Can school districts not muster “respect and tolerance” for religious views during a small portion of the public school day?  That they must resort to “censorship and suppression” by demanding school boards reject the opportunity SB11 affords its parents and students reveals much about their opinion of freedom.  To them, the State of Texas should enforce freedom for the secular, but never the religious.

“Respect for religious expressions”—yes, even of public-school students—“is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch in Kennedy.

We hear a lot about “mutual respect and tolerance” for different points of view, often from school board officials and administrators themselves.  School districts had the prime opportunity to show their resolve to tolerate the religious needs of their students by giving them a small period of the day to pray and read their Bible.  They chose not to do so.

Many of the school districts that rejected the bill probably hoped to set an example of freedom and diversity for their students.  But it seems they did quite the opposite.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Passover: Understanding God’s Faithfulness and Prophetic Promises in a Time of War

Passover is once again around the corner.  Because of the current war with Iran and flight restrictions, family reunions to and from Israel might be very challenging, if not impossible, this year.  Nevertheless, Passover even took place during the pandemic, so there is no doubt that because of the resilience and creativity of the Jewish people, they will celebrate Pesach in 2026 (5786 on the Jewish calendar).  As a matter of fact, Passover 2026 is more relevant than ever!

Passover is biblically relevant: Going back to the book of Exodus, we read about the children of Israel’s departure from Egypt, led by Moses, into the wilderness wanderings. The details of the first Passover are given in Exodus 12 and serve as the foundation for the festival of Pesach.  The Jewish people were introduced to the event as they were required to obey the God of Israel and trust Him.

Most of what they were asked to do was a novel event to them, but they went ahead and obeyed nonetheless:

“Now you shall eat it in this manner: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste—it is the Lord’s Passover.  For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the Lord.  The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:11-13).

Passover became the starting point for the great voyage through the wilderness that would bring the chosen people to the Promised Land.  It is also the first of the yearly convocations prescribed by the Lord in Leviticus 23, and one of the three with Shavuot and Sukkot to require physical presence in Jerusalem in biblical times.

Passover is historically relevant: Moving forward from the first Passover, the Jews have celebrated freedom from Egyptian slavery, God’s provision, and protection ever since. The Passover Seder (order) commemorates the events of the first Pesach and reminds them of God’s promises, covenants, and faithfulness.  In light of the current events in the Middle East and so much uncertainty, the promises of Passover are something to hang on to, more than ever before.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob carried the children of Israel through the desert, against all odds, one miracle at a time; the Passover not being the least of them.  In fact, that part of Jewish history is often used by God to remind Jewish people of His compassion, love and faithfulness: “But the Lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, Him you shall fear, and to Him you shall bow yourselves down, and to Him you shall sacrifice” (2 Kings 17:36).

Because of promises made by God such as the one found in Jeremiah 31:35-37:

“Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The Lord of hosts is His name: ‘If this fixed order departs From before Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever…. ‘If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel.”

From our fragile human perspective, the situation looks bleak, but from God’s perspective, we know He’s got our back.

Passover is prophetically relevant: Perhaps more important than the biblical foundation and historical customs is the prophetic meaning that the feast of Passover holds.  Each of the Levitical feasts found in Leviticus 23 has a clear prophetic meaning and fulfillment as they pertain to the redemptive ministry of Yeshua the Messiah.  From the death of Yeshua the Lamb of God at Passover to Tabernacles, when His physical presence to fellowship with the believers in the Messianic Kingdom for 1,000 years will be experienced.  A similar fulfillment in Yeshua is also expected in all the feasts and fasts in the rest of Leviticus 23.

At the Last Supper, found in the three Synoptic Gospels—Matthew 26:17–30; Mark 14:12–25; Luke 22:7–38—and also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26, Yeshua led a Passover Seder in the Upper Room.  While the disciples were gathered around the table to reminisce about the Egyptian captivity and ensuing freedom, Yeshua gave Pesach a much deeper meaning.

He connected many dots for them and for us in a way that should encourage us to trust Him even more:

Passover requires us to use Matzah (unleavened bread) throughout the whole meal and during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Leaven in the Bible usually symbolizes sin. Matzoh is without leaven, pierced and striped, just like Yeshua was without sin, pierced and striped.

Of the four Passover cups, Yeshua used the third one, or “one after supper,” also known as the Cup of Redemption.  This was to symbolize His blood that would be shed soon after on the cross for the redemption of the sins of all mankind.  This is when He instituted “The Lord’s Supper,” also known as communion.

At that moment, He also used the piece of Matzah known as the “afikomen” that had been pierced (crucifixion), broken (death), wrapped in white linen (burial clothe), put away (three days in the tomb), retrieved and shown to all (resurrection).  This was to symbolize His body given for all.  This is all part of Jewish tradition and not a Christian invention.

Additionally, there are many parallels between the lamb for Passover and Yeshua the Lamb of God.  In Exodus 12:3, the lamb had to be examined, and Yeshua was examined by a delegation of rabbis at His Jordan immersion (John 1:19-34).  In Exodus 12:5, after examination, the lamb had to be declared “kosher for Passover” once proven without defect, blemish, or spot.  Yeshua the Lamb of God was blameless, spotless, and without sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).  None of the lamb’s bones were to be broken according to Exodus 12:46, and Yeshua gave His last breath before they would break His legs as was the practice at the end of a crucifixion (John 11:33-36).

There are so many more connections to be made between Yeshua and the Passover Lamb.  Suffice it to say that He fulfilled all the Spring Festivals and will fulfill all the Fall Feasts in the future.

God’s faithfulness is our anchor for such a time as this.  Our human perspective is blurred by our inherited sin nature, but God’s perspective is like His vision: flawless.  We need the Lamb of God more than ever.

Keeping it all in perspective and biblical, the Lamb of God was sacrificed for our sins over 2,000 years ago.  He rose again after three days, ascended into Heaven and currently sits at the right hand of the Father.  He is patiently awaiting the day when He will return—not as the Lamb of God—but as the conquering and ruling Lion of Judah!  In the meantime, let’s all be grateful for the work of the Lamb on our behalf.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

WA School Says “Yes” to Student Anti-ICE Protests, But “No” to a Classmate Sharing the Gospel

A middle school vice principal in the state of Washington (WA) pulled a student out of her math class in February and told her that she was not permitted to distribute Gospel tracts at school.

The student, having faced similar pushback when she was in second grade in the same school district, asked a perceptive question: Why were other students allowed to express their viewpoints but she was not?  The vice principal replied that students may share opinions but not religious beliefs.

That distinction is constitutionally impermissible, says a demand letter sent to the school district by attorneys with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) on the student’s behalf.

During the conversation with the student, the vice principal said it was permissible for the school to allow students to leave campus during school hours to participate in anti-ICE protests, but she maintained that the student’s distribution of religious literature was not permitted.

“The District’s own officials have articulated a policy of viewpoint discrimination with unusual candor,” the ACLJ’s letter states.  “The school has opened a forum for student expression during non-instructional time and has selectively excluded a religious viewpoint from that forum.”

The letter goes on to explain that the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court rulings preclude such discrimination against a particular viewpoint.

Back in elementary school, over a two-month period, the student was sent to the principal’s office at least 10 times for witnessing to classmates on the playground.  In addition, school officials began stopping her at the school’s entrance every morning to inspect her backpack and remove any Christian tracts.

The ACLJ sent a demand letter and obtained a signed agreement with the school district that the student could continue to share her faith at school without threat of punishment.

But now, with the district going back on that promise, ACLJ has given school officials a deadline of March 27 to affirm in writing that they “will comply with the requirements of the First Amendment, by permitting [the student] to distribute her religious tracts to her classmates and discuss her faith during non-instructional time, without further interference from school officials.”

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Christian Father Facing Death Penalty After False Blasphemy Charge

Ishtiaq Saleem, a Christian sanitation worker and father from Islamabad, Pakistan, is awaiting a possible death penalty verdict after being accused of sharing material considered blasphemous on social media— a charge he denies.

Authorities in the Pakistani capital arrested Saleem on November 29, 2022, after allegations emerged that he shared online content viewed as offensive to Islam.  He now faces multiple criminal charges under the country’s blasphemy laws and cybercrime legislation— legal provisions that can carry the death penalty if a court finds him guilty.

The case has reached a critical stage after hearings in Saleem’s trial concluded before a special court in Islamabad, while proceedings continue for a co-accused, identified as Muhammad Umair, according to the legal advocacy group ADF International, which is supporting Saleem’s defense through allied lawyers in Pakistan.

A verdict is expected after hearings related to the co-accused are completed.

Saleem, now 34, was 31 at the time of his arrest and has remained in prison while the case moved through the courts.  His bail requests were rejected by lower courts and later by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which also ordered the trial court to expedite proceedings, the advocacy group reports.

Prosecutors charged Saleem under several sections of Pakistan’s criminal law.  These include Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code for intending to outrage religious feelings, Section 295-B for alleged desecration of the Quran and Section 295-C for insulting the Prophet Muhammad— one of the most severe blasphemy provisions because a conviction can carry the death penalty.

Authorities also charged him under Section 298-A of the penal code, which concerns derogatory remarks regarding holy personages, and under Section 11 of Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act of 2016— a law governing cyber offenses that includes provisions related to inciting interfaith hatred.

Saleem has denied the accusations and maintains that he did not download or share any blasphemous content online.

According to ADF International, a network called the “Blasphemy Business Group” fabricates blasphemy accusations to entrap people for blackmail and extortion, and the group is allegedly headed by Rao Abdur Rahim, the lead prosecution counsel in Saleem’s case.

The network allegedly includes lawyers and individuals who coordinate with the cybercrime unit of Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency, the national body responsible for investigating federal offenses, including cybercrime.  Such coordination has enabled cases based on online activity to move into the court system, ADF International said.

Pakistan’s National Commission on Human Rights has reported that more than 450 individuals have been targeted in similar schemes involving fabricated blasphemy accusations.

Blasphemy allegations have long carried significant legal and social consequences in Pakistan, where the relevant sections of the penal code criminalize actions or speech considered insulting to Islam or the Prophet Muhammad.  Convictions under Section 295-C, in particular, can result in the death penalty.

Statistics cited by the Lahore-based Centre for Social Justice indicate that 1,949 blasphemy cases were registered in Pakistan between 1987 and 2021.  The group reported that those accused during that period included 928 Muslims, 643 Ahmadis, 281 Christians and 42 Hindus, along with 55 individuals whose faith was not specified.  The data also show that 84 people accused of blasphemy were killed outside the legal process before courts issued final verdicts.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The World Is Not Overpopulated

We are in a trend of what can be called “delayed marriages/delayed families.”  The formation of a traditional nuclear family is at an all-time low in American history. Husbands and wives are questioning if they can afford, even with both working, to start a family.  Just a few years ago the American family of the future was likely be “1.8 children and 2 pets.”  Let’s address the common reasons why fewer young people are having large families.

Population fears

Recently, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, author of the book The Population Bomb, passed away at age 93.  His bestselling book of the ‘70s was filled with doom-and-gloom predictions of mass starvation due to overpopulation.  His work was nothing more than disgusting, unsubstantiated fear-mongering.  The world is not overpopulated — not even close. That is a lie against God and a distortion of the scientific facts.  One tongue-in-cheek but appropriate comment to his obituary read: “Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich is survived by 8,300,678,394 people (134% increase from 1968), with a daily worldwide average calorie intake of 2,800 kcal (a 22% increase).”

Financial fears

Many fear the expense of raising children.  The truth is, Satan hates families and will do everything in his power to prevent or destroy them.  Today’s “needs” were yesterday’s luxuries that many cannot imagine doing without.  Yet they come with a cost that is shrinking families and decreasing fertility.  Thankfully, there are still couples who are committed to raising children to impact the world for Christ. There are increased numbers of stay-at-home moms who refuse to get caught up in the materialism of today’s society. They have chosen a simple, wholesome lifestyle with Christ at the center and are raising a happy children.

Biblical perspective

In Luke 2:24, we read that Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple to honor the Jewish law for newborn boys.  They could not afford a lamb to sacrifice, but “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” was an acceptable offering to fulfill the law.  They recognized their financial position and humbly obeyed God’s Word.  So should we.

Make a plan

Accept where you are without comparing yourself to others.  Understanding who you are in Christ will give you the confidence to live “contra mundum.”  The world will tell you everything you “need” to outfit a nursery, how to dress fashionably during pregnancy, where to take a “babymoon,” the best childcare available, and so on — basically telling you how to spend your money (or max out your credit cards). Many projected costs are higher than necessary for those who are consciously dedicated to living on a conservative budget.

Financial preparation is important to prevent stress during and after pregnancy.  It is achievable by sacrificing for the greater good of a family.  Choosing to live modestly does not mean you have to suffer.  It simply means setting boundaries and prioritizing spending.  Refuse to get too comfortable in this world by focusing on eternity, not on earthly desires.  Be creative in finding ways to enjoy living free of financial worry and “keeping up with the Joneses.”  The “Joneses” are probably in debt anyway.

Things to consider:

•     Will both parents work outside the home after children arrive?
•     Can you live on one income now?
•     If working, will you have maternity benefits?  Can your job become remote?
•     Will you need childcare?  If so, in or outside the home?
•     Is your family willing to help?

Begin living on one income while using the other to build emergency savings.  Pay down high-interest debt, like credit card balances.  Create a budget that will enable you to save while simultaneously paying off debt.  Be willing to adjust your lifestyle dramatically.  This will create margin, especially if housing and vehicle expenses can be reduced.  Bump up contributions to your Health Savings Account (HSA) so tax-free dollars can be used for medical expenses.  Don’t forget to give first.

Start buying groceries regularly and cooking at home.  Learn to make freezer meals. These will help once a baby actually arrives.  Family, friends, and YouTube can provide recipes and cooking lessons.

Look for free entertainment without the cost of subscriptions and streaming, which add up over time.

Resist the temptation to hire professional photographers, have elaborate celebrations, or decorate a magazine-worthy nursery.  Learn to be content with simplicity and a life free of financial stress.  Find like-minded friends with whom you can do life.

Sell what you don’t need.  Limit time on social media to avoid impulse spending or the desire for perceived needs.  Save, get good health insurance, and write a will.

If you believe people will offer to have a baby shower for you, begin making a list of true essentials. Don’t spend any money until absolutely necessary.  Instead, ask God to provide.  If and when things are needed, you can borrow from family or friends or shop Facebook Marketplace and thrift stores. Don’t rob yourself of the joy of having your prayers answered by impatiently getting ahead of God.

Reject the nonsense found in The Population Bomb, and renew your mind on God’s truth:

“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.  Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth.  Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!  He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3–5 ESV).

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

CA Governor’s Wife Says Evangelicals “pulling us back as a country”

A newly resurfaced COVID-era interview with the wife of California (CA) Gov. Gavin Newsom has gone viral for her claim that Evangelicals are “pulling us back as a country.”

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, CA’s “first partner,” made the comments in a 2022 interview with former Fox journalist Elex Michaelson in which she advocated for the political left to redefine the traditional meaning of the pro-life movement.  “So many progressives are leaning into redefining what pro-life is really about, and that’s what we’re doing in California,” she said.  “You know, pro-life is about prenatal care and universal preschool and universal after-school and universal healthcare and taking care of foster kids and feeding kids universal meals and childcare.  Like, that’s pro-life.  It’s not about conception.”

Siebel Newsom then took aim at folks on what she called the “far right,” including Christians and conservatives.  “They’re living in this Evangelical, conservative silo that, ultimately, is just pulling us back as a country to a time and a place where we don’t deserve to be and we’re not gonna be,” said Siebel Newsom.  “Because honestly, young women and fathers of daughters are awake now, and they’re woke, and they’re not going to let us go back.”

She went on to express optimism about this shift, stating it filled her with “so much hope” and emphasized CA’s role in the process: “I have so much hope because of that.  And obviously, California has a huge responsibility to lead.”

The resurfaced footage drew criticism from conservative groups like American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which called Siebel Newsom’s comments a “radical attack on Christians.”

Noting that California has the “ACLJ’s largest donor base,” Logan Sekulow, director of media for the ACLJ, wrote, “That means a vast number of Evangelicals and conservatives in that state support our work and oppose the far-left radicalism of the Newsoms.  So, Jennifer is completely out of touch with millions within her own state.”  Sekulow added that although these views might appeal to liberals during the primary, such a political disconnect could spell trouble for a long-rumored plan for Newsom to run for the White House in 2028.  “How will that affect her husband’s eventual presidential bid?”

Siebel Newsom’s official biography on the state website explains her preference for the title “First Partner” over “First Lady” as a deliberate choice intended to send a signal of inclusivity, recognizing that one day there will be a woman or [LGBT] Governor of California, and to elevate the importance of partnership and the need for, and benefits of, a caring, inclusive government.

The resurfaced footage of Siebel Newsom’s views on Evangelicals revived controversy over Gov. Newsom’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, when his administration imposed strict public health restrictions on in-person religious services that drew widespread criticism from churches and led to multiple high-profile lawsuits.

In March 2020, Newsom issued statewide stay-at-home orders that classified houses of worship as non-essential, effectively banning indoor services for churches while allowing certain secular businesses to operate with modifications.

Churches, like South Bay United Pentecostal Church, Harvest Rock Church and Grace Community Church, led by then-Pastor John MacArthur (now deceased), challenged the restrictions as discriminatory, arguing they violated First Amendment rights by treating religious gatherings more harshly than comparable secular activities.

Lower courts initially upheld many of the orders, but the U.S. Supreme Court intervened multiple times, most significantly in February 2021, when the Court struck down CA’s ban on indoor services, allowing limited capacity while prohibiting outright bans.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

WV Senate Stands Up for Kids, Passes Bills to Shield Children from Drag Shows and Transgender Locker Room Exposures

The West Virginia (WV) Senate recently passed two crucial bills: Senate Bill 590 and Senate Bill 1083, to safeguard minors from explicit performances and indecent exposures, drawing outrage from radical LGBTQ activists who claim the measures unfairly target their community.

SB 590, sponsored by Sen. Tom Willis (R), criminalizes “adult cabaret” performances on public property or in view of minors, expressly including female impersonators, aka drag queens.  This includes acts by “topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to the prurient interest.”  Violators will face penalties of up to a $25,000 fine or five years in prison.

During floor debate, Sen. Willis clarified that the bill’s intent will not include harmless plays or concerts. He defined a “go-go dancer” as someone “scantily dressed” performing “erotic” routines, emphasizing that only content exciting “lust or lewdness” would be prohibited.

Sen. Joey Garcia (D), raised concerns about the language, questioning if family-friendly shows like Mrs. Doubtfire or Kinky Boots could be affected.  Supporters countered that the bill’s focus on “prurient interest” ensures it targets only obscene material, not artistic expression.

The bill passed with overwhelming support, 31-2, with only two Democrats voting no.

SB 1083, expands the definition of indecent exposure to include undressing in a locker room not matching one’s biological sex “in a manner likely to cause affront or alarm.”  It also requires sex offender registration for those convicted of exposing themselves to minors and imposes enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.

Originally a bill by Sen. Ryan Weld (R) to update indecent exposure laws, it was amended to address transgender individuals using opposite-sex facilities.  Weld opposed the changes, calling them unconstitutional, but his amendment to remove them was rejected.

The bill passed 32-1.

Predictably, the state’s only LGBTQ organization, “Fairness West Virginia,” went crazy over the legislation.  Executive Director Andrew Schneider blasted the bills as “dangerous,” accusing Senate Republicans of “Trans Derangement Syndrome.”  In a statement, the organization ranted, “Instead of helping the people of McDowell County get clean drinking water, they’re planning to arrest drag queens.  Instead of stopping our schools from closing, they want to lock up innocent transgender people.”  They falsely claimed the bills will label “trans Mountaineers and drag artists as dangerous criminals simply for existing,” ignoring the explicit focus on protecting children from exposure.

Both bills now head to the House of Delegates, where they must pass the Judiciary Committee before a full vote.  If approved, they could land on the governor’s desk before the session ends.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

IN Judge Rules There is a ‘Religious Right’ to Kill Babies in Abortions

A radical Marion, IN, Superior Court judge ruled that the “right” to kill an unborn child is now a protected religious exercise, permanently blocking enforcement of the state’s pro-life protections against a class of plaintiffs who claim their faith requires them to terminate pregnancies.

Superior Court Judge Christina Klineman, a Democrat, granted summary judgment in favor of abortion activists and issued a permanent injunction against Indiana’s abortion law, ruling that the statute conflicts with the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The decision blocks enforcement of Indiana’s abortion ban for a certified class of plaintiffs and members of the activist group “Hoosier Jews for Choice,” who argued that abortion can be a religious practice.

In the order, the court accepted arguments that abortion may qualify as a form of religious exercise protected by IN’s RFRA if individuals claim their beliefs require terminating a pregnancy.  The ruling states that the plaintiffs believe their religion can require abortion under certain circumstances, including situations involving mental, emotional, or physical wellbeing.

“The organization and its members believe that under Jewish law, an abortion is directed to occur if it is necessary to prevent physical, mental, or emotional harm to a pregnant person, even if there is not a physical health risk that is likely to cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” the court wrote.  Judge Klineman concluded that enforcing IN’s abortion restrictions against people who claim such beliefs would “substantially burden” their religious exercise under state law.

As a result, the court ordered that the state cannot enforce the abortion law against these plaintiffs if doing so would violate their claimed religious beliefs.

Klineman wrote:

“Having already found that the Abortion Law and RFRA are in conflict, and that the State has not met its burden of showing a compelling state interest in prohibiting abortions for religious exercise, the court now finds that the Plaintiff’s remedies at law are inadequate and the outright ban of abortions for religious exercise causes irreparable harm.

The court finds that the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs harm to the Defendants because the Abortion Law already has exceptions and there has been no showing that this limited exception for religious exercise would somehow explode the number of abortions sought in contradiction of their stated interest.

The court finds that there is significant public interest in ensuring the religious freedom of all citizens and the State’s position that religious freedom is somehow less important than other exceptions in the Abortion Law puts the court in an untenable position and finds a permanent injunction the only proper relief.”

IN passed its abortion law in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  The law prohibits most abortions but allows limited exceptions, including:

Cases involving rape or incest during early pregnancy

Situations involving lethal fetal anomalies

Medical emergencies that threaten the life or serious health of the mother

Doctors who violate the law can face criminal penalties and potential loss of their medical licenses.

IN Attorney General Todd Rokita appealed the ruling to a higher court.  “We disagree with the court’s decision and have already appealed,” an office spokesman told Indiana Capital Chronicle.  “As we have with every challenge against our pro-life law, we’ll continue fighting to protect the lives of the unborn.”

The case now heads toward the IN appellate courts, where the controversial decision could ultimately be reviewed by the state’s Supreme Court.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

AL Takes Step to Prevent Church Disruptions

Alabama (AL) House Republicans advanced a new measure meant to deter church disruptions with substantial prison sentences and fines.

The legislation, filed as House Bill 363, comes weeks after left-wing activists invaded a church service in St. Paul, MN, over one of the pastors’ working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  House Bill 363 would charge those who similarly interrupt religious services in AL with up to 10 years in prison and fines of $15,000 or more, according to a report from the Alabama Reflector.

It passed in the Alabama House with a vote of 75 to 27.

“This bill would provide that if an individual enters upon the premises of a church building to intentionally disrupt a worship service by engaging in a riot, unlawful protest, or disorderly conduct, or otherwise engages in the harassment of any other individual in the worship service, the individual would be guilty of the offense of disruption of a worship service,” the legislation said.  “This bill would also provide that if an individual enters upon church property contiguous to where a church worship service is being held with the intent on obstructing the ingress or egress to the property, and obstructs the ingress or egress to the property, the individual would also be guilty of the offense,” it added.

AL State Rep. Greg Barnes (R), defended the bill on the House floor, saying that it “is a religious protection bill that protects all religions, not just churches, synagogues.”  “And that’s a very narrowly tailored, narrowly scoped bill,” he said, per the Alabama Reflector.

But some members of the House Democratic minority contested the bill on the floor.  “I think the absolute worst place that you could take away a person’s right to disagree is in the church.  I don’t understand how you say that,” AL State Rep. Sam Jones (D) said in reaction to the bill.

Alabama State Rep. Chris England (D), even claimed that Jesus Himself would face prison time under the legislation.  “Under this particular piece of legislation, when Jesus went out there and flipped over some tables, he would have been a Class C felon,” he argued.

The bill protects any “bona fide duly constituted religious society or ecclesiastical body of any sect, order, or denomination,” such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, as well as “other religious real property.”

It will now be considered by the AL Senate.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

CO’s Gender Transition Tyranny Regulates Conversations

The medical consensus on gender-transition treatments for minors is shifting.  PTL!  But many state laws are not — and families are paying the price.

Imagine your 14-year-old daughter has been struggling — withdrawn, anxious, overwhelmed by social media.  She comes home one day and tells you she thinks she’s actually a boy.  You love her dearly and want her to get help.  So, you find a licensed therapist who shares your family’s faith, someone your daughter trusts, someone who will listen carefully and take her pain seriously.  In most areas of medicine, that choice — your child, your doctor, your values — belongs to you.  But in states like Colorado (CO), it belongs to the state.

Therapists in CO have only one legally safe response: affirm the transition.  Any other approach — including simply helping your daughter explore her feelings, understand her identity through the lens of her faith, or grow more comfortable with her biological sex — risks a $5,000 fine and the loss of the therapist’s license.  The conversation between the therapist and patient is no longer private.  The state has inserted itself into the room.

This is the reality of bans on “conversion therapy” — found in CO as well as 22 states and the District of Columbia.  This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will decide whether such laws can stand.

Across the U.S. and Europe, medical authorities are urging greater caution.  A growing number of hospitals and health systems are restricting or have discontinued gender-transition procedures for minors, citing legal risks and scientific uncertainty.  Britain’s 2024 Cass Review — the most comprehensive examination of pediatric gender medicine to date — found the evidence supporting medical interventions in minors to be weak and inconclusive, prompting sweeping policy changes.  The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has recommended against gender surgeries on minors, and the American Medical Association has endorsed deferring such interventions to adulthood.

Yet under CO law, licensed therapists may not help minors explore alternatives to gender transition without risking their careers — even as the rest of the medical world pumps the brakes.

The therapist challenging CO, Kaley Chiles of Colorado Springs, is a Christian whose clients often seek her out because of that shared faith.  Many are young people struggling to reconcile feelings of gender confusion with their religious beliefs and family relationships.  These young people and their parents are not asking for a predetermined outcome.  They want help untangling a confusing situation — not a state-mandated conclusion handed down before the first session ends.   “The law basically restricts the speech between me and my client,” Chiles has said.  “If your daughter were to say, I think I am a boy, we can only affirm and validate that and assist with gender transition.”

That isn’t therapy.  That’s ideology with a license.

Supporters of these laws rely heavily on the emotionally charged term “conversion therapy.”  The phrase conjures images of electroshock treatments and coercive programs once used on same-sex-attracted kids.  But as Chiles’s attorneys argued before the SCOTUS, the studies CO cites lump together violent aversive treatments and ordinary talk therapy as if they were the same thing.  They are not, and there is no credible evidence that compassionate, conversational counseling damages children.

Earlier this year, a Westchester County jury awarded $2 million in a malpractice case to Fox Varian, a 22-year-old who underwent a double mastectomy at 16, finding that her psychologist and surgeon had deviated from reasonable standards of care.  Her mother testified at trial that the doctors assured the surgery would improve her daughter’s well-being and suggested that failing to do so would likely drive the child to commit suicide.

Meanwhile, evidence continues to emerge that medical transition does not deliver the psychological benefits often claimed.  A recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services found no reliable evidence that such interventions reduce suicide risk or improve long-term mental health in minors, while documenting serious risks including infertility, cardiovascular complications, and regret. Other research suggests that up to 90% of children who experience gender dysphoria before puberty naturally reconcile with their biological sex if allowed to mature without intervention. 

SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito pressed the point during oral argument, drawing comparisons to other once-dominant medical consensus positions — on forced sterilization or institutionalizing children with Down syndrome — that history has since judged harshly.  CO’s attorney had no good answer.

The constitutional problem is straightforward.  The First Amendment does not permit the government to compel citizens to express ideas they do not believe, and that protection applies with particular force inside the confidential relationship between therapist and patient.  CO is not regulating medical procedures.  It is regulating conversations.

Families facing these challenges want access to counselors who share their values and will speak honestly, without fear of government punishment.  That includes the right of parents to seek care from treating professionals that doesn’t begin with a foregone conclusion.  The Constitution guarantees such freedom.  We will soon learn if the SCOTUS vindicate it.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel