CWA’s Alison Howard speaks at the House Triangle before the coalition delivers hundreds of thousands of petitions to the Chinese Embassy.

What if I told you there were millions of girls who were never given a chance to “lean in”? … Left out of the conversation. … Not invited to the table.  What if I told you they were systematically being eliminated not only from the workforce but from life itself?

I didn’t believe it either, until a friend pointed me to a movie that sounds about as “girly” as one can get.  “It’s a Girl.”  Those are words usually met with joyous applause, right?  Wrong.  It’s a Girl is a film documenting how, in many parts of our world, those three words are a death sentence.

Concerned Women for America is made up of over 500,000 members, many of whom were shocked to hear — like you will be — that there are over 160 million missing girls in this world, missing just because they were born female.  It is a sad reality, but in India, China, and many other parts of the world, girls are killed, aborted, and abandoned simply because they are girls.  The United Nations estimates that as many as 200 million girls are missing in the world today because of “gendercide,” the deliberate extermination of girls in favor of boys.  This is the true “war on women” — a long war, rooted in centuries-old tradition and sustained by cultural and government policies that value little boys over little girls.

But thanks to the efforts of a coalition against gendercide, especially that of the newly released It’s a Girl movie and movement, we are no longer uninformed and unaware.

Did you know that India and China kill more females every year than the number of girls born in the U.S in a year?  China also has the highest female suicide rate in the world, with over 500 women ending their lives every day in China according to the World Health Organization.  We have a real human rights problem and are seeing the systematic elimination of women and girls. Concerned Women for America has and will call discrimination out when we see it.  And if we do not join hands on this devastating issue and condemn the sex-selective practices in this world, we will fail future generations of mothers, sisters, teachers, doctors, and leaders.

It is because of this gendercide that we see, in countries like China and India, an unnatural ratio of men to women.  There are 37 million more men than women in each of these countries today, leading to devastating societal consequences.

You can easily see how a rising population of frustrated single men spells trouble.  We’ve seen an increase in the horrors of sex trafficking, forced marriages, and the kidnapping of women.  This is all very, very real for women across those countries.

This is not a Left or Right issue; this is common ground.  Even Hillary Clinton lamented the practice of sex selection in China and India.  All of the talk of reaching across  the aisle for positive change in this world can start right here on this issue.  On Tuesday, April 23, members of Congress, led by Reps. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) and Jim McDermott (D-Washington) joined with the Coalition Against Gendercide to highlight this tragedy by screening It’s a Girl.

On April 24, I had the honor of speaking at the House Triangle before the coalition delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions addressed to China to the front door of the Chinese Embassy (petitions which the Chinese Embassy refused to receive, by the way).

So how can a girl “lean in” if she can’t even get out?  Protecting a girl in the womb and at birth is the first chance at giving her a fighting chance in this world.  Today, I challenge you to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.  The film, It’s a Girl, is a great tool to help people understand why those are the three deadliest words to hear in many places today.

Encourage everyone you know to see it, and then take action to end this horrific practice.

Two days before the April 12 hearing on Virginia’s proposed abortion clinic regulations, we realized those opposed to the new safety-for-women regulations planned to pack-out the hearing.  CWA members, Sandi, Shirley, Judy, Holly, Wendy and State Director, Janet Robey, arrived three hours before the meeting was to start.  We were met with rain, lightning and a tornado watch and quickly realized that our opposition had, indeed, mobilized supporters to fill the conference room.  From past hearings, we knew there would be a public comment period and hoped that several of our members would have the opportunity to speak.

Knowing the public comment time is usually limited to 20 minutes with only two minutes allowed for each speaker, an audible gasp was heard when we learned 78 people had signed up to speak!  The Board promptly voted to extend the public comment period to 60 minutes which allowed 30 individuals to speak.  Would any of our members make the cut?  Yes!  God was faithful, and there was time for Wendy, Sandi, Shirley and Janet to share!

Various issues were passionately discussed regarding the need for safety regulations.  Sandi, who works in the healthcare industry, stressed the importance of abortion clinics being required to maintain the same safety and health standards as any other medical clinic doing invasive procedures. Shirley shared her experience of having had an illegal abortion in 1965.  Contrary to the images of back-alley abortions, her abortion had been performed in a very clean and sterile environment.  Shirley then contrasted this with the numerous infractions recently documented at numerous Virginia abortion clinics.

Wendy spoke of being a tax payer and our tax money being used for these clinics and that Planned Parenthood’s profits should be used to upgrade their clinics.  She also questioned how pro-women they actually are if they don’t provide proper facilities.  Lastly, Janet referenced the left’s recent diatribe concerning this culture’s supposed “war on women.”  However, the real “war on women” IS being waged in such states as Virginia where women undergo abortions every day without clinic oversight or accountability!  Regulations would importantly curtail unsafe and unclean clinics where such medical procedures are endured by all races of women to the profit of Planned Parenthood and others. Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s recent trial in Pennsylvania has highlighted the need for such oversight and accountability.  Janet concluded her testimony asking that the board vote to fully implement the abortion clinic regulations as written.  All women need to be protected from any “Kermit Gosnell” practicing in Virginia.

Those opposed to state regulations far outnumbered those supporting the proposed safety regulations.  Contrasts between activists were observed not only from their Board room speeches but also from attitudes, behaviors and dress, inside and outside the hearing room.  Board Member, Amy Vest, recounted her desire to observe an abortion clinic firsthand; she made an appointment to visit a clinic in her area and was shocked by what she observed: a creaky staircase to the second floor (likely unable to support the weight of emergency technicians needing to gain entrance), a sink which would make it difficult for a doctor to properly scrub up, and a hallway too narrow to allow a gurney to pass if medical emergencies were to ensue.   She spoke of her own experience 20 years ago of having a D&C after a miscarriage and being transported from the treatment room to recovery on a gurney; the women at this clinic had been required to walk from the abortion table to the recovery room where four recliners were available.

Two Board members requesting that the final vote on permanent clinic regulations be postponed were informed by lawyers representing the Attorney General office that to do so would create significant difficulties; the temporary regulations would expire, and the state General Assembly had already mandated these regulations be completed before then.  A vote to postpone was overridden, 11-2.  The same two board members then attempted an amendment which also failed!  Finally, the moment of truth arrived!  The official vote FOR abortion clinic regulations was recorded, 11-2 in favor!  As pro-lifers respectfully clapped their approval, many of the opposition immediately rose with fake blood on their hands, chanting “The blood is on YOUR hands” and “Shame on YOU”!  These actions necessitated police removal of EVERYONE from the board room!  When we were escorted out the building’s back door, we were also met by a string of tactical police!

The State Board of Health Commissioners had nonetheless stood their ground valiantly, and CWA appreciates very much their MANY hours of work and sustained efforts over the last 24 months!  As unfortunate as the post-vote situation became, WE are so thankful to God for:

(1) the vote result, (2) CWA’s statewide supporters for their many prayers on our behalf, as well as (3) the actions of our wonderful volunteers!  We could not make an impact without EACH of you!

Today’s guest blogger is Janet Robey, Virginia State Director for Concerned Women for America.

How can Senate Democrats blatantly snub women this way?

A Senate resolution to honor Lady Margaret Thatcher was supposed to be passed Wednesday night. Nevertheless, per a Senate source, the resolution fell subject to partisan politics. It’s no secret in Washington, D.C., that both sides hold different measures to antagonize the other side. But it’s petty and disgraceful to use a measure like this for political gain. Not only did Margaret Thatcher make the history books for being appointed prime minister of Great Britain, she also helped the United States wipe out communism.

We aren’t talking about some one-trick pony like Sandra Fluke. We’re talking about a foreign leader who held one of the most powerful offices in the world — a leader who conquered overwhelming odds.

Despite one’s political leanings, you can’t dispute the accomplishments of Margaret Thatcher. In only highlighting one of her accomplishments — being the first and only female prime minister of Britain to this day — those of others seem dismal by comparison. So why, then, do Senate Democrats seek to degrade her by blocking a resolution honoring her achievements (achievements, I might add, that have done more for women’s rights then any left-leaning feminist)?

Where’s the cry of “foul”? Where are the Senate’s progressive women, and why are they not standing up for such a remarkable female who made feminine history?  Oh, that’s right; she was conservative, so they’re silent. Talk about pushing women’s rights back!

A woman such as Lady Thatcher deserves respect and honor for her great achievements. Instead, her legacy is mocked and blocked by hypocritical sycophants. I leave you with Lady Thatcher’s own words “If they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Feminists are, predictably, having what we in the deep South used to call a “hissy fit.”  They are reacting with rage and bombast to a letter published in The Daily Princetonian that advised coeds not to waste their college years where they are surrounded by a high “concentration of men who are worthy of you.”  Susan Patton, a graduate of the Princeton class of 1977, reminded the students that “the man you marry” will be “inextricably linked” to their future happiness. No. Really?

As a 20-year-veteran of the political arena in Washington, D.C., I have seen several generations of college graduates come to the nation’s capital, where bright and intelligent men and women are overworked and underpaid to pursue their dream of making a mark on the world.  Invariably, they are steeped in the current myths about “establishing their careers” and “becoming financially stable” before even thinking about marriage. When they finally — and belatedly — get around to pursuing a life-time partner, many find, however, a dearth of desirable potential husbands or wives (i.e., eligible in terms of equal/superior intelligence and education with compatible values and good prospects as a friend, mate, and parent). As each year passes, chasing professional advancement, the odds worsen for women of finding Mr. Right, even in this era of supposed gender equity.  The cold hard facts are that men who’ve become established in their professions can usually much more easily than women find a pool of potential mates (usually younger) from which to choose.

Mark Regnerus pointed out in, Premarital Sex in America, there is a two-fold problem for women: First, the young men who chose not to sleep around tend to find a mate early; those who are left carry a lot of baggage from years of promiscuous sex with numerous other girls. Second, it is mainly the guys pushing “casual” sex, but it is the women who pay the larger price in terms of emotional costs, STDs, and the results of increased numbers of partners.

Successful marriages are based on mutual respect and common interests and values. Being “unequally yoked” (whether in intellect, education, faith, status, potential, or prospects) often makes for shaky, dysfunctional, and/or doomed relationships. Nobody wants to go back to the days where women went to college solely for the “Mrs.” degree, but it is foolish for women to ignore the fact that after college they likely will never again be surrounded by as many guys who meet their criteria for marriage.  Nor is it wise for young men to ignore the fact that they will never again have the opportunity to evaluate the characteristics of so many young women and choose one to cherish and grant the privilege of carrying their name, bearing their children, and sharing the ups and downs of life together.

In today’s “hook-up” culture, young men and women have to buck not only the anti-marriage biases of their generation, they also have to buck the “sex without consequences” myths that short-circuits their ability to bond and creates emotional (and often physical) “baggage” that hurts their chances for the happy, fulfilling, life-time marriage that the majority ultimately want.

Here is a personal assessment by my husband of 50-plus years: “I don’t get the controversy today.  In college, I pursued — with great persistence — the girl I wanted to be my wife.  Smartest thing I ever did.  We were both 22-year-old virgins and flat broke when we married fresh out of college; all we had was the $100 my dad gave me as a wedding gift plus $300 my older brother loaned me.  Persevering through the ups and downs, we built a wonderful and meaningful life that has been full of challenges and equally full of passion, joy, and the satisfaction of walking side-by-side, pursuing our career ambitions together, raising two great kids, and now enjoying our seven terrific grandchildren.”

They’ll call me a bigot, but I prefer to see myself as a realist.  So let’s jump into it.  The Today Show’s Jenna Wolfe dropped an unexpected bombshell into the national conversation over “gay marriage.”  She announced on air (and in her blog) that, “My girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, and I are expecting a baby girl the end of August.”

First and foremost, I am pro-life.  Let’s just put that up front.  I love babies.  Children are life changing, and I’m sure Miss Wolfe is already finding that out.

However, I’m also like that little kid who yelled, “The king has no clothes!”  If there’s something to be said and no one wants to say it for fear of hurting the feelings of others, well, you’ll find me there.  Sorry to rain on your parade, but truth is truth.

So here we go.  The headline on the Today Show’s website starts out with the word “Surreal.”  But, in truth, it should read “Unreal.”  Jenna Wolfe and her girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, are most certainly not expecting a baby girl at the end of August, not in the biological sense, anyway.

When a man and a woman unite in a sexual union, the woman provides the unfertilized egg and the man provides the sperm.  Those two things — biologically exclusive to members of the opposite sex — merge and the miracle of life begins.

So herein lies the crux of our dilemma: Miss Wolfe and Miss Gosk are both women.  That’s not an anti-“gay” statement; that’s a true statement.  Biologically speaking, they cannot, of their own volition, produce a child.  I’m sure they’re both nice women, but they need a man in order to have a baby.

And if they need a man in order to have a baby, then who can honestly say that this is the only contribution a man can make?  Who can honestly say that Miss Gosk can replace — truly and completely replace — the father who should be present in that child’s life?  Consider, if you will, all the social science data to date that shows that children do better in a traditional mom-and-dad household.  Which parent does the child not need?  A young lady asked that very question to a state legislature recently — “Which parent do I not need?” — and no one could answer her.

It may be politically correct to celebrate the news of Miss Wolfe’s pregnancy.  It may be politically correct to celebrate Miss Gosk’s role as the child’s “other parent.”  But it is selfish, and supremely so, to deny the child — and others like her — the benefit of either a mother or a father.  Two men cannot produce a child.  Two women cannot produce a child.  And neither of those familial arrangements is fair to the overall development of a child.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m sure Miss Gosk will be supportive and loving and caring to Miss Wolfe’s child; but she will never be — can never be — the child’s father.  And, to me, that’s just sad.

Today’s guest blogger is Christian Shelby, a volunteer with Concerned Women for America.

But unborn children need you more.

I thought it would be a lazy Tuesday morning; I thought everything would go smoothly.  But then, “You’ve got Mail!”  And, well, I’ll let you read it for yourself:

“There won’t be as many babies killed this year, but the slaughter is still moving forward.  We have made big strides, but our work isn’t finished yet! … 2013 must be the last year that the … slaughter takes place — and with your help, we can save … lives.  Please donate now — help us stop the senseless slaughter. … Unless something changes, without more help from … defenders like you, this horror will occur again.  Please donate today so that we can ramp up our campaign to stop the slaughter.  This massacre is a terrible price to pay. …”

Despite what you may think, this isn’t from any of the pro-life groups with which you’re familiar.  However, it is a pro-life message … for baby seals.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the adorable baby seals just as much as anyone else, but the Left’s obsession with saving anything but human babies is beginning to wear my patience thin.  I’m tired of hearing the women of my generation being urged to give up their world in order to “save the earth” — “courageously” killing our future in the name of “freedom of choice.”  I’m also tired of hearing about women like 29-year-old Jennifer Morbelli walking into abortion clinics and dying days later from “complications” after having their late-term children ripped from their wombs.

Over 4,000 children are aborted each day in America — over 4,000 children crying, screaming — no, shrieking in horror — for a chance at the same life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the Left has twisted into a license to kill.  Over 4,000 children a day.  Is this not a “senseless slaughter”?  Is this, too, not a “massacre” in the truest sense of the word?

Groups like PETA bemoan the slaughter of baby seals and condemn the women who wear the furs.  But Left-leaning groups support the slaughter of innocent human children and ignore the women who are forced to wear their decision to abort on their hearts and consciences for the rest of their lives.

Where, oh liberal Left, is your compassion?

This hypocrisy — this cultural insanity — is what first drove me to work with groups like Concerned Women for America (CWA), which was founded after Beverly LaHaye heard NOW’s founder, Betty Friedan, claim to speak for the women of America.

Like me, Beverly knew this Leftist woman didn’t represent her beliefs or those of the vast majority of women.  And they still don’t.  NOW … NARAL … Planned Parenthood and the rest. … They don’t speak for me.  They don’t think for me.

And they shouldn’t speak or think for you.

It’s time to rise up, ladies.  It’s time to stand and take the microphone back from loudmouthed, liberal feminists who hate children.

It’s time to stand with Concerned Women for America.

Seal the deal.  Donate here.  But for pity’s sake, don’t just throw money at the problem.  Get involved in a state chapter of CWA or, if you’re in college, check out Young Women for America.  But whatever you do, do it today.  Because, “unless something changes,” the horror of abortion will occur again … and again … and again.

Today’s guest blogger is Christian Shelby, a volunteer with Concerned Women for America.

Let me just come out and state the obvious: Beyoncé is a talented superstar, but she is also a trashy performer and contributes to the crudity and vulgarity that permeates today’s cultural scene.  In spite of an appearance at President Obama’s second inaugural, which lamentably gave her a respectable aura and a “sort-of-official” stamp of approval, her performance at the Super Bowl is far more typical of her “appeal.”  A quick perusal of pictures that have gone viral from her Super Bowl performance show the anger, crudity, and vulgarity of her performance.

I realize we live in different times, but think back to Lena Horn and Ella Fitzgerald to provide evidence of how far today’s performers have fallen from the class that used to be an essential characteristic of singing stars.  Beyoncé missed a wonderful opportunity at the Super Bowl to elevate popular culture, that she is capable of showing some of the class, and bring some family-friendly entertainment to the Super Bowl, instead of continuing the downward spiral that is so destructive in popular culture.

Beyoncé has always mixed glamour with her trashy look and her music, which has led to confusion about who exactly she is.  On the one hand, she claims to be a Christian, and on the other she is intentionally vulgar in her language and dress.  She is praised for her traditional values about sex, relationships, and family; she is a hard worker and is multi-talented.  Her defenders claim that she is sexy in a classy, tasteful way.  I would argue that they haven’t looked at the pictures very closely.

Obviously, sexy is here to stay, but there is healthy sexuality — that which is naturally exuded — and unhealthy sexuality that is exploitative, flaunting, and deliberately and vulgarly provocative.  Case in point: Beyoncé is on the cover of a recent GQ magazine in a provocative pose, wearing the skimpiest of bikini panties and a cut-off t-shirt that exposes as much as it covers.

Beyoncé is beautiful, talented, and blessed with tremendous influence, but like so many others, she is using the excuse of “artistry” as she takes herself and her fans down instead of lifting them up.  In her Fall-Winter ad campaign for the House of Deréon, the pop star goes for the “biker chick” look with lots of tattoos, partial nudity, and crude poses.  In addition, she joined her mother to launch a kid’s fashion line that spreads the “hooker style” clothing down to toddlers (some reports claim the line was quietly discontinued in December 2012).  In some of her videos, Beyoncé uses gutter language and some critics claim that she is too willing to “go with the flow” to seem “with it” and “cool.”

Her sister, Solange Knowles, who is the designer behind many of the styles that made Destiny’s Child singers (Beyoncé’s original singing group and the back-up singers at her Super Bowl performance) so fashionable, is said to be worried about Beyoncé’s descent into the world of “tacky,” “flashy,” and “lowbrow.”  So, it is not prudish (to anticipate all the criticism bound to come from this article) to hold higher standards for today’s divas; they owe the public at least a facade of decency.

In a year when the advertisements at the Super Bowl descended into what has become an annual cesspool of tastelessness and crudity, the “good” ads won with viewers. According to USA Today’s Ad Meter, viewers voted the “good” ads as the best Super Bowl XLVII commercials.

From highest to lowest scores of ads in the top 10:

7.76 –– Anheuser-Busch Horse and trainer reunited

7.75 –– Tide Miracle Stain

7:43 –– Dodge RAM Farmers/Paul Harvey

7:27 –– Doritos Fashionista Dad

7:20 –– Jeep Families Waiting

In the “Bottom Five” were the two Black Crown party commercials, and at the bottom of the list was the ad that “might have earned the most buzz for the night” –– Go Daddy’s commercial featuring Bar Refaeli kissing (making out with) a tech worker.

It appears that the “party” and “making out” scene is not something that most Americans want to see when their family gathers around the TV set to watch the Super Bowl. One has to wonder if the creative “geniuses” at the corporations understand Americans or the Super Bowl at all.

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work?

Which city in the United States is home to the most pornography viewers? The answer is Washington, D.C., the seat of the nation’s power players. Do you ever wonder why the Department of Justice does not enforce obscenity laws? Could the viewing habits of D.C.’s denizens influence the lack of enforcement?

The source of this information is PornHub, a XXX website. The New York Daily News carried the story about the study and noted that the rate of online pornography watched in D.C. is 14.18 videos per person in a year. While that may not sound like a lot to some, consider that the D.C. rate is nearly twice the rate of the second highest porn viewing state, Hawaii, where it is 7.57 per person.

We know that not everyone watches pornography, so that means the people actually watching online pornography in Washington are watching a lot more videos than 14.18 each. Who is watching them, and are they doing so at work? Does it influence their work?

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work? One Washington Times article lists these agencies that have employees with porn problems: Pentagon, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Missile Defense Agency. The article quotes a cyber-security expert who warns, “Many pornographic websites are infected and criminals and foreign intelligence services such as Russia’s use them to gain access and harvest data.”

You would think that national security nugget would be a good enough reason for prosecuting obscenity producers and purveyors, but evidently it is not.

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder shut down the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, which was established under Pres. George W. Bush’s Administration. A Politico article quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in reaction to this move:

“Attorney General Holder told the Judiciary Committee last year that this task force was the centerpiece of the strategy to combat adult obscenity,” Sen. Hatch told POLITICO in a statement Friday. “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama Administration is giving up without a fight.”

According to the PornHub statistics, obscenity blankets Washington. The lack of adult obscenity prosecutions is harming everyone. While the Department of Justice focuses on prosecuting cases of child pornography, those who are watching adult pornography may turn to child pornography when the adult material no longer excites them. If adult pornography prosecutions are non-existent, a gateway to child pornography is left in place to ensnare new viewers.

So, while some of D.C.’s denizens turn a blind eye to punishing the producers and distributors of obscenity, others are glued to their porn-filled computer screens. The key to why obscenity, while illegal, thrives in D.C., and beyond may be one mouse click away on screens hidden behind closed doors and cubicle walls in offices throughout Washington.

Christmas presents have been opened (thanks for the socks, Grandma!), New Year’s resolutions have been made (and quickly broken), and now we’re all back to work, slaving away to earn the few pennies we keep after taxes.  But as I look back on the whirlwind of activity during the Christmas season, I see an encouraging trend.

As we drew closer to Christmas, the malls increasingly looked like a war zone.  I half expected the National Guard to be on patrol.  People were pushing and shoving, packing tightly into stores in search of that extra gift, that one to show someone in their life they’re special.

In light of a recent post I made about the “Penny Culture,” a term coined (ba-dump-bump!) by Joel and Luke Smallbone, of for King and Country, the crowds were kind of refreshing.  All of a sudden, life wasn’t about us; it was about other people in our lives … special people who also gave us gifts because they thought we were special, too.

I mean, do we ever stop to think about it?  During the rest of the year, we bow to the cultural mentality of Hollywood and other humanistic powerhouses and treat each other — and, most importantly, ourselves — as if we were only worth a penny.  But during Christmas, we try and find that special gift that will tell our love ones, “You’re worth the world to me.”  No wonder the secular Penny Culture hates Christmas.

And then a story my coworker told me got me to thinking.  He was out recently for his four-year-old son’s oral surgery.  Here’s the way he tells it:

The doctor gave my son the oral meds and sent us back out into the waiting room.  He began to get drowsy after awhile, but he kept fighting the urge to sleep.  He’d been to the dentist office a little over a month ago, and this was the follow up to complete everything that needed to be done to his teeth.  He’d be losing some of them this time, and he was so scared.

The time came, and we went back to the dentist chair, where they strapped him down so he wouldn’t flail around and accidentally cause himself harm during the procedure.  He immediately flew into a wild fit of what I thought was anger — threatening to do harm to everyone in the room (Yikes!) — while I held him down and talked to him very calmly.

Then came the point at which I realized that he wasn’t angry, but terrified.  With tears streaming down his beet-red face, he looked up at me and yelled, “I don’t want to die!!!”

Oh, how that broke my heart.  We stopped.  I held him close, promised him that he wouldn’t die, and explained that what was about to happen would actually stop the pain he had in his mouth.  He finally calmed down after that.  But to think that he thought I’d let someone kill him left me with a heavy heart.

Lots of people advocate against Christmas, and millions more feel empty at Christmas time.  We see depression and anger as a result.  But could it be that we’ve misjudged?  Could such anger and depression perhaps be due to fear and the fact that so many have bought the lie that they’re hardly worth a penny?  The belief that no one could truly care about them, because they’re not worth loving?

When you’ve bought that lie — when you own it, and it owns you — how hard is it to hear and believe the truth that you’re worth so much more?  How hard is it to hear that you’re not worth only a penny?  How hard is it to believe that “God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son,” wrapped Him in old cloths, laid Him in a feeding trough for animals, and set His feet on the path to a sacrificial death to take our place on a sinner’s cross?

It’s very hard.  Very hard indeed.  If a four-year-old can believe that his own father would allow him to die in a dentist’s chair, how big a stretch is it to say that people would believe that God is indifferent to their plight and would allow them to die without lifting a finger to save them?

It’s said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.  And what that means is it becomes accepted as truth.  And that makes the real truth more difficult to accept.

We didn’t just wake up and find ourselves in a Penny Culture.  It happened gradually over time.  We did this to ourselves.  Our apathy and unwillingness to counter the lie — our desire, perhaps, to stay in our little comfort zones — has allowed the enemy of our souls to change the culture by replacing the truth with a lie.

So if we want to move to action and be “co-laborers,” as the Apostle Paul says, then we should not be discouraged when our efforts are rejected.  Just as our decline into a Penny Culture was gradual, we should expect that it’ll take some time and continuous effort to turn back the tide.  But take heart; in the end, the war has already been won, because it’s been fought by a God who sees you as you are: Priceless.

Are your New Year’s resolutions broken already?  Forget them.  Set goals instead, and let’s put this goal at the top: To be the arms of God.  Let’s wrap His love around those who need it this year — those who don’t know their true worth — and do so continuously.

For now, I’ll leave you with the opening lines of for King and Country’s latest single, Baby Boy, which could very well become an anthem:

If you told me all about your sorrows,
I’d tell you about a cure.
If you told me you can’t fight the battle,
There’s a Baby Boy who won the war.
The war was won by a Baby Boy …
Alleluia …

for KING & COUNTRY – Baby Boy

Christian Shelby, a volunteer with Concerned Women for America, contributed to this post. The first in the series on a Penny Culture is located here.