#220 (5/31) - A Dangerous Treaty the Media Is NOT Talking About!

[NOTE: Below you will read about another example of how the mainstream media decides what is news, ie. what to bring to your attention. I have yet to hear the following matter brought up in any national evening news report - though there sure is a lot of stories about the Queen of England and her year of jubilee! I invite you to read the following article and then go to the site> http://www.cwfa.cc/2805/offer.asp?Ref_ID=10755&CID=805&RID=35371468and either join in sending out faxes to the Senators noted or send them an email as I have.[To contact YOUR Senator, please go to the link provided on the right side of this blog.] There's nothing like hearing from voters that has a chilling effect on our representatives - trust me!]

The Danger of Article 82 and Obama’s Latest Treaty
- Posted By Mike Brownfield On May 22, 2012

Back in 1982, President Ronald Reagan decided not to sign a treaty known as “Law of the Sea” (LOST), a United Nations convention that would raid America’s treasury for billions of dollars, then redistribute that wealth to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica. But today, the Obama Administration has revived that treaty, and tomorrow Senator John Kerry (D-MA) will hold hearings designed to illustrate its supposed benefits and generate support for its ratification. Without a doubt, Reagan’s decision should stand, and LOST should remain relegated to the trash bin of history.

The rationale for LOST is that it supposedly brings order to the world’s oceans, defines the rights and responsibilities of nations as they navigate and conduct business across the seas, protects the marine environment, and allows for the development of natural resources of the deep seabed. On the surface, these all sound like worthwhile goals. The thing is, the United States doesn’t need to join another United Nations treaty to make it happen.

For more than 200 years before LOST was adopted in 1982 and for 30 years since then, the U.S. Navy has successfully protected America’s maritime interests regardless of the fact that the United States has not signed on to the treaty. The United States’ navigational rights and freedoms have been secure, and they are best guaranteed by a strong Navy.

LOST is not without consequences, either. One of the more nefarious and insidious of its provisions is Article 82, which requires the United States to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles – an area known as the “extended continental shelf.” That money, which one estimate says could be worth many billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the International Seabed Authority, a new international bureaucracy created by the treaty and based in Jamaica. Heritage’s Steven Groves explains [1] that from there, America’s money could be shipped to the Middle East, Africa, China, and even state sponsors of terror:

"LOST directs that the revenue be distributed to “developing States” (such as Somalia, Burma … you get the picture) and “peoples who have not attained full independence” (such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization … hey, don’t they sponsor terrorism?). The assembly – the “supreme organ” of the International Seabed Authority in which the United States has a single vote to cast – has the final say regarding the distribution of America’s transmogrified “international” royalties.

The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, China or Zimbabwe – all members of LOST. Perhaps those dollars will go to regimes that are merely corrupt; 13 of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations, according to Transparency International, are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive dollars fresh from the U.S. Treasury.

In addition to shipping America’s money overseas to unsavory recipients, LOST could have other negative consequences, as well, by exposing U.S. industry and manufacturing to baseless international lawsuits [2]. In fact, environmental activists and international legal academics are actively exploring the potential of using international litigation against the United States to advance their agendas. And for those who say LOST is a tool for mediating international disputes, take a look at the Philippines, which signed on to the treaty and yet today is finding itself browbeaten by China and its claims in the South China Sea [3].

If America truly wants to preserve its rights on the sea, then it needs to bolster the one tool that has guaranteed those rights throughout history — a strong U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s watch, the United States is seeing its fleet diminished in size and ability. A lone piece of paper will not defend America’s interests on the sea, and neither will transferring billions of dollars to an international authority in Jamaica for redistribution the world over. LOST should not be ratified and signed, and instead Washington should turn its attention to ensuring that the U.S. Navy has the resources it needs to protect America’s interests on the high seas.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/22/morning-bell-the-danger-of-article-82-and-obamas-latest-treaty/

URLs in this post:
[1] Heritage’s Steven Groves explains: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/17/149128/lost-blood-and-treasure.html
[2] baseless international lawsuits: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/accession-to-un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea
[3] browbeaten by China and its claims in the South China Sea: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/16/standoff-between-china-and-an-american-ally-in-the-pacific/

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law of Sea Treaty A Back Door For Cap And Trade
Posted by Brian Darling; http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2012/05/30/law-of-sea-treaty-a-back-door-for-cap-and-trade/ Wednesday, May 30th

"Conn Carroll had an excellent piece at the Washington Examiner yesterday titled “Obama’s Lame Duck Plan To Pass Cap And Trade.” Carroll makes the case that Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) may use the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) as a back door to implement cap and trade regulations on United States citizens...."

#219 (5/30) - Slashing the Military - Risking Lives To Save Money?

America’s Antique Air Force - By Mike Brownfield On May 18, 2012

America’s flying fortress, the Cold War-era B-52 bomber, has been in service for the last 50 years, running missions in Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. It’s a striking example of how America’s military is being forced to do more with less, relying on decades-old technology to confront today’s challenges. Unfortunately, the B-52 is only one example of the United States’ geriatric fighting force, and with mounting cuts to the military, America’s ability to defend itself is increasingly called into question.

In a new “America at Risk” video [1] from The Heritage Foundation, David A. Deptula, a retired three-star general, gives his view of America’s aging Air Force. It’s a story he has experienced first hand. Deptula flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977, and 30 years later, his son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan. The fighter, which was initially planned to have a 4,000-hour service life, later saw its mission extended to 8,000 hours. Heritage’s Rob Bluey reports [1] on one harrowing incident where Deptula came face to face with the consequences of stretching U.S. forces to their limits:

"While serving as the joint task force commander in 1998 and 1999 for Operation Northern Watch, Deptula flew 82 combat missions over Iraq [2]. On one mission, as he was headed to a tanker to refuel, the master caution light came on, revealing a problem with the plane. His fuel gauge went to zero. Meanwhile, he was 500 miles away from his base. Fortunately, he was able to land safely." ‘The insulation was so old it simply had deteriorated to the extent where it came off and all of the wiring shorted out,’Deptula explained. ‘Those are the kinds of things that happen when airplanes get to certain ages.’ "While his aircraft was grounded, another set of airplanes traveled from Kadena Air Force Base in Japan, on other side of the world, to replace the one that was being repaired."

Ultimately, the Air Force was forced to ground its entire F-15 fleet [3] after one fighter disintegrated during a training mission in Missouri in 2007. In a new paper, Heritage’s Steven Bucci explains [4] the consequences of continuing the trend of cutting the military and stretching U.S. forces:

"The Obama Administration is seemingly trying to find ways to pay for the expansion of entitlement spending programs at the expense of the military force, arguing that military spending is a drain on the economy rather than a protector of American society. While everyone, including military leadership, wants more efficiencies, cutbacks in military programs motivated solely by cost savings are ill-advised. Cutting many of the at-risk programs will leave the U.S. military where they were post-World War II and post-Cold War: hollow and ill-prepared for growing threats.

Stretching the life of military aircraft puts our fighting men and women in mortal danger, and it poses threats for the U.S. armed forces as a whole. In Heritage’s video, Deptula says, “I hear people talk about, well you know, the U.S. military spends more money than the next 17 nations combined. Well, the next 17 nations combined are not committed to maintaining peace and stability around the world. We are.” But in order to keep that commitment, Congress and the Administration must ensure that the U.S. military has the resources it needs to carry out its mission of protecting America.

Don’t Miss It: Be sure to watch Dave Deptula’s story in Heritage’s newest “America at Risk” video! Click here to watch. [1]

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/18/morning-bell-americas-antique-air-force/

URLs in this post:

[1] “America at Risk” video: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/16/video-militarys-aging-aviation-force-puts-america-at-risk/
[2] Deptula flew 82 combat missions over Iraq: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5213
[3] ground its entire F-15 fleet: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f156nov06,0,7052818.story
[4] Heritage’s Steven Bucci explains: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/a-new-decade-of-security-how-ready-is-america

[Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

#217 (5/28) - Memorial Day: Honoring Those Who Sacrificed For Our Religious Freedom

[NOTE: While we typically remember those who died in our nation's wars on Memorial Day weekend, this article points out that others also sacrificed by coming here to find and then leave us a legacy of religious freedom that we dare not take for granted.]

Remembering Those Who Sacrificed,Posted on May 1, 2012 by Truth In Action Ministries
http://www.truthimpact.me/index.php/2012/05/remembering-those-who-sacrificed/?utm_source=Impact+e-Newsletter&utm_campaign=ef89947701-Impact_Newsletter_5_8_2012&utm_medium=email

On Memorial Day weekend, we should with gratitude remember those who laid down their lives to protect and gain our freedoms, and especially, freedom of religion.

America is unique in that this was the first nation in the history of this planet that had freedom of religion. Religious tyranny prevailed all over the globe. Gradually some nations, like England, rose to religious tolerance. But only in America was full religious freedom granted for the very first time.

This continent, hid between two great oceans, was reserved by God for that expression of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and for our sake, has shown Himself as the invisible Hand of Providence.

For example, since Europe was the birth place of America, we could have become Muslims. In 711, the vast North African hordes of Arabs, the Moors, who were fanatically committed to Islam, crossed over at Gibraltar and conquered all of Spain.

They began to cross the Pyrenees into Central Europe and France, conquering one city after another, until they came to Tours, where they were met by Charles “The Hammer” Martell and his army.

It seemed that the soldiers of the crescent were so laden with booty they had gathered in Spain, they were not fit to fight, so their general told them to lay down this vast collection of gold and silver and jewels. As the fighting began, God sent a whisper: “The enemy is stealing our spoils.” And suddenly the Moors reeled and turned to go back to defend their goods. Martel and his forces attacked and when the day was over there had been tremendous defeat, and that effort to overtake all of Europe by Islam came to an end.

Or, we could have had a Spanish form of religion which repressed the Bible, distorted the Gospel and defended religious tyranny with the Inquisition. But God said, “Nay.”

Christopher Columbus and his ships were heading right for Florida. Things were getting very bad. The sailors were ready to panic and mutiny. But God sent a flight of seagulls that crossed the bow of the ship. The sailors thought the birds were heading for land. The command went out, “Follow those birds,” which took them southeast and they missed America altogether.

After the British had developed New England, the French were determined to change that to “New France.” Duke Danville, with thousands of soldiers, sailed down from Nova Scotia to attack New England.

But in a Boston church, the Reverend Mr. Prince, having received intelligence of the invasion, began to pray earnestly. Suddenly the shingles on the roof began to shudder and then the sound of a strong wind, and the French ships were sunk beneath the waves by the invisible Hand of Him who is the God of storms.

In December 1620, the Pilgrims finally arrived at Plymouth. But because the land seemed inhospitable, they decided to sail farther south. What they didn’t realize, though, was that all along the eastern coast of America were hostile Indians, and there was hardly one spot where they might have survived. But He that rides upon the storms blew again and the Mayflower turned and returned to Plymouth — the only place they could have survived, because two years earlier the Indians that had inhabited that area had died in a plague and left the corn that they had gathered, which the Pilgrims used to survive that first winter.

On this Memorial Day, may we remember the invisible Hand of Him who brought this land to be what it was founded as, a nation whose God is the Lord.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#216 (5/27) - Sunday Special - "GOLD STAR MOM "

NOTE(1): I read the other day that only 50% of Christians are registered to vote and that only 50% of those actually vote! That means that only 1/4 of the tens of millions of eligible Christian voters in this country actually fulfill their civic, and I believe Biblical, responsibility as stewards of this very God-blessed nation! If just half of Christians voted in a Biblically-informed way, we could decide most elections, and certainly the critical one taking place this November.
As we remember and honor this Memorial Day the millions of Americans who serve and who have died to preserve our freedoms, is it not a clear dereliction of our duty to our country as citizens when we fail to register AND to vote? By so doing, do we not also DIShonor the sacrifices of the millions who have laid down their lives for us? Remember and honor our service men and women, and be able to tell future generations that you interceded for them, by being sure you are registered and then voting in the elections this year.

NOTE(2): Be sure to tune in to this week's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms"(In Orlando, 5 pm, ch. 55.1)or watch it at:http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/truth-that-transforms/ Today's broadcast includes a report on how military chaplains are being silenced.)

REMEMBER – On this day/weekend, and any time, please make it a habit as I have to walk up to someone you see in uniform and thank them for their service to our country. It will remind you not to take your freedoms for granted and to appreciate the heroes who help preserve them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note: A Gold Star Mother is any American woman whose child has died in the line of duty of the United States Armed Forces.

By Keo R. Gathman(Keo herself is a former Marine, the sister of a soldier killed in Viet Nam ('70),and her son is in the Army.)

As she stands beside his grave
On yet another Memorial Day,
She remembers the boy she sent away
And how he became the man resting here today.
His heroes didn't become famous playing ball.
In fact most of their names were never well known at all.
They went to work wearing camouflage green and desert brown,
Earning their reputation as the toughest warriors around.
When he first saw them in dress blues
The heart within her little boy knew,
That nothing short of becoming one of them would do.
Time all too quickly passed by
As childhood things were put aside,
And his heart's desire would not be denied.
"I love you, Mom" he said one day
"But the time has come for me to go away,"
And she knew his decision she couldn't sway.
Through tears she tried so hard to keep inside
She told her baby boy goodbye.
Writing him letters nearly every day
She often took the time to pray,
"Lord be with my boy today."
"Help him clearly see the man I know that he can be,
Grant him his most cherished dream,
Let him come home, a United States Marine."
When the time came for him to go to war
She feared as she had never feared before,
Prayed there would be no knock on her front door.
They came that day dressed in their blues
And though in her heart she already knew,
She cried out "No, it can't be true."
The man child she had sent away
Was at last coming home to stay.
He never doubted what they did was right,
And he never wavered in the fight.
Forever and always as in his childhood dreams,
Her boy remains a United States Marine.

Copyright 2006 Keo R. Gathman ( beakerless@hotmail.com ). Permission is granted to send this to others, with attribution, but not for commercial purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Closing Thought: - A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America for an amount up to and including their life.

#215 (5/26) - "Is The War on God Changing the Military?"

- Posted on May 1, 2012 by Dr. Jerry Newcombe, Truth in Action Impact Newsletter http://www.truthimpact.me/index.php/2012/05/is-the-war-on-god-changing-the-military/?utm_source=Impact+e-Newsletter&utm_campaign=ef89947701-Impact_Newsletter_5_8_2012&utm_medium=email

Is there a war on God among some in the military? That would seem to be the case.

For example, at the Veterans Administration’s Houston National Cemetery, the director told a local Nazarene pastor that he could not pray in the name of Jesus because it was not “all inclusive.” He respectfully sought the right to do so, but was denied. Liberty Institute filed suit on his behalf and won a last minute injunction, so he was able to pray in the name of Jesus after all.

Kelly Shackelford, founder and director of Liberty Institute, wrote an article with attorney Eri Leu on another example of recent V.A. censorship of God: “One widow testified that a cemetery employee sought to restrict the religious speech of the VFW Honor Guard just moments before her husband’s funeral was about to begin. Another widow, whose husband served in the army for thirty years, held her husband’s funeral service at a nearby private chapel due to V.A. restrictions on religious expression.” Thankfully, Liberty Institute prevailed in their lawsuit to stop these anti-religious abuses.

Meanwhile, there is a lawsuit to remove a 58-year old cross in San Diego that serves as a veterans’ memorial. A three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (in the San Francisco area) has ruled the tall, concrete cross at Mt. Soledad to be unconstitutional. The ACLU filed suit on behalf of a non-Christian group of veterans to remove the symbol. This case is headed on its way to the Supreme Court (www.donttearmedown.com).

Elsewhere, a leading military hospital was poised to implement an anti-Bible policy that would have been spiritually devastating. Thankfully, once the light was shone on the policy, common sense prevailed, and the policy was quashed.

Since 1909, Walter Reed General Hospital in Washington, D.C., has been caring for injured Army personnel. Later it was named Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Recently, they moved to Bethesda, Maryland, and became Walter Reed National Military
Medical Center, expanding their mission beyond just the Army. As the new facility was opening, the Navy issued a 4-page memo with new guidelines for the new hospital. Amazingly, the guidelines stated “no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” Thankfully, active Christians managed to get the policy reversed.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative pro-family think tank in Washington, D.C., sounded the alarm on December 2, 2011: “Effective immediately, families, friends, and even pastors will have to check their beliefs at the door to visit one of the largest military hospitals in the United States.” Family Research Council was able to alert officials on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Steven King of Iowa. So Congressman King went to the House floor and shone the light on this case. The Navy rescinded the noxious order. The Bible is allowed at Walter Reed. But why was it going to be disallowed at all? This is the book that gives comfort and hope and eternal life to grieving veterans and their families.

As a student of American history, I find it fascinating that the first thing George Washington did as Commander in chief, when he received the Declaration of Independence on July 9, 1776 (mail was slow back then), was to systematically make sure that chaplains serve throughout the regiments. (There were chaplains before him, but he systematized their placement more thoroughly and made sure they were paid a decent wage.)

Speaking of himself in the third person, Washington said once about his army, “The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.” I have no doubt where the father of our country would have stood on these issues.

Jeff Mateer, General Counsel of the Liberty Institute, said, “Our veterans fought and many died for our religious freedom and to have it stripped away under the façade of inclusiveness is the height of offense to those who have served our country.”

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#214 (5/25) - Are YOU Ready for Taxmageddon?

Stopping the Largest Tax Hike in History
- Posted By Mike Brownfield, May 11, 2012

The largest tax hike in history is due to strike the United States on January 1, 2013. Known as “Taxmageddon,” it would impose $494 billion in higher taxes on the American people in the first year. So terrible would be its impact that yesterday Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Senate Democrats [1] that the country is headed toward a “fiscal cliff” and that Congress must deal with the impending tax nightmare.

On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced [2] that his chamber will take up the issue before the November election. Knowing Washington’s general reluctance to do anything of substance in an election year, Boehner’s announcement was welcome news given the disastrous ramifications the threat of such a massive tax hike is already having on the economy. That’s according to Mohammed El-Erian, CEO of Pimco, the world’s largest bond trading firm. El-Erian argues [3] a “prolonged political inaction is likely to postpone building plants and purchasing equipment and to discourage them from hiring.” And that is only an inkling of the blow that would strike the economy if these tax hikes actually took effect.

How could nearly half a trillion dollars in higher taxes hit the American people so fast? What hath prior Congresses wrought? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains [4] that the tax hikes come from a series of expiring tax cuts and the imposition of even more new taxes. And Heritage’s J.D. Foster writes [5] that Americans can expect to see the following tax consequences starting next year:

- Income tax rates shoot up,
- The child credit is cut in half,
- The marriage penalty roars back,
- The capital gains tax rate goes up,
- The dividend tax rate soars,
- The payroll tax rate jumps two percentage points,
- The death tax is restored to its punitive past,
- The Alternative Minimum Tax relief expires, and
- A uniquely pernicious additional payroll tax hike from Obamacare takes effect.

Taxmageddon not the only tax problem. A consensus is coalescing in favor of fundamental tax reform, and many members of Congress understandably want real progress. Fortunately, there’s a solution if Congress gets its act together and decides to take action. Foster writes that solving America’s tax problem should be a simple two-step process:

Step 1) Prevent Taxmageddon. If Congress doesn’t act, Foster says, “The effects on families and businesses would be devastating; the effects on the economy no less so. Congress should make current tax policy permanent and eliminate, once and for all, this cavalcade of tax hikes.” Washington should take action before the election and before the tax hikes hit in order to bring more certainty to the economy and give taxpayers much-needed relief. Taxmageddon is anti-tax reform, a big step in the wrong direction.

Step 2) Usher in true tax reform. America’s tax code inhibits growth and bedevils taxpayers with its maddening complexity. Having prevented a big step in the wrong direction with Taxmageddon, Congress should then lower marginal tax rates and eliminate taxes on saving and investment while eliminating the many ill-advised deductions, exemptions, and credits that distort the economy and clutter the tax code. Foster points to Heritage’s New Flat Tax, contained in the Saving the American Dream Plan [6], as the best way to simplify the tax code, make it more fair, and encourage the kind of economic recovery America needs.

Speaker Boehner warned that if Congress does not take action soon, “We’re going to have this mess all stacked up until after the election. And you want to talk about a train wreck? You’re talking about a big one.” He’s right. The American people can’t afford the $494 billion Taxmageddon train wreck, and the time is ripe this summer for Congress to do something to prevent it.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/11/morning-bell-stopping-the-largest-tax-hike-in-history/

URLs in this post:[1] warned Senate Democrats: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/05/bernanke-to-senators-country-heading-toward-fiscal-123101.html
[2] announced: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/10/speaker-boehner-plans-to-stop-taxmageddon-train-wreck/
[3] El-Erian argues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-shouldnt-delay-in-addressing-the-fiscal-cliff/2012/05/03/gIQAx3F0zT_story.html
[4] Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/taxmageddon-massive-tax-increase-coming-in-2013
[5] Heritage’s J.D. Foster writes: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/2012-tax-policy-two-step-taxmageddon-then-tax-reform
[6] Saving the American Dream Plan: http://savingthedream.org/about-the-plan/

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

#213 (5/15) - Sign the Petition To Remove The Gag From Pastors!

[NOTE: If you watched this past Sunday's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms," you saw a presentation of how pastors have spoken on the issues of our day even from the days of the Pilgrims as well as the American Revolution.[You should still be able to view this presentation at www.truthinaction.org] They, in fact, were key in keeping people informed of the issues of the day as they spoke from their pulipits. But for almost 60 years now, pastors have been UNCONSTITUTIONALLY denied/indimidated from exercising their First Amendment right to inform their congregations by Biblically asessing the fitness of people running for public office. PLEASE click on the link provided below and sign the petition to urge Congress to pass a bill to repeal this unjust law!]

Restore Free Speech To America's Pulpits

"Your pastor has been forced into silence ... unconstitutionally by the federal government. Pastors are prohibited from using the standard of God’s Word to assess local, state, or presidential candidates. To do so from the pulpit would result in tax-exempt status being nullified. You and I must boldly help clear the road to freedom in this critically important election season. America’s pastors must be freed to confront the culture — to speak out with clarity and conviction on the issues of the day."

"In 1954, then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson submitted a floor amendment to ban all nonprofit groups from engaging in election activity. Without hearing or public debate, his amendment passed the Senate on a voice vote and quickly became law — and churches across America suddenly found themselves stripped of a right exercised by clergymen from America’s founding. This federal tax law also gives IRS agents the authority to investigate and punish churches if pastors render biblical (not even political) judgment on a candidate’s fitness for public office."

"U.S. Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) has introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the ban on church free speech".

"Please tell your U.S. House and Senate members that the time has come to extend the protection of the First Amendment to America’s churches."

"Stand for free speech! Sign the petition (at the web address listed below) to help restore the rights of the First Amendment to America’s churches." "With your help, we’ll put Congress on notice — and work towards repealing the ban on church free speech." [In truth, the ban also restricts/indimidates non-profit Christian ministries as well from speaking out, and that is also very wrong!]

PETITION to REPEAL THE BAN ON
CHURCH FREE SPEECHIn Support of H.R. 3600

http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/free-speech-signature-drive/?utm_source=TIA_Import_11_21_2011&utm_campaign=e7c0527437-5-10-12+Freedom+of+speech+for+pastors&utm_medium=email

#212 (5/13) - Sunday Special - "In Honor Of Moms"

[NOTE: HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY! As always, please remember to watch today's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms," in Orlando at 5 pm on channel 55.1. There is a re-broadcast tomorrow at 7 pm, channel 52.2. It presents the classic message, "Will the Church Forget?" as well as tells you why the 300,000 pulpits of our country are largely silent in speaking out on the issues of our day.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The article below is a rather sociological view of the importance of the nurturing of mothers. It is good stuff. However, like me, you may find the following story more illustrative: It happens that on August 16, 1987, a Northwest Airlines plane crashed shortly after taking off from the Denver airport and killed 155 people. Miraculously, the lone survivor was a four-year old named Cecelia from Tempe, Arizona. Initially, rescuers thought her good condition meant that she lhad merely been in one of the cars the plane had crashed in. But the plane manifest later showed she was definitely unboard. Though we will never know for sure, it is believed that what probably happened was that, as the plane was falling, her Mom, Paula Cichan, quickly unbuckled her seat belt, got down on her knees in front of her daughter, and wrapped her arms around the little girl's body. Her actions had the effect of sufficiently cushioning her daughter from the full force of the fall, which resulted in her survival.

In relating this story ("God's Story, Your Story," pp. 86), author Max Lucadeo says, "God did the same for us. He wrapped himself around and felt the full force of the [Fall]. He took the unrelaxed punishment of the guilty. He died, not like a sinner, but as a sinner-in our place...His sacrifice is a sufficient one. Our merits don't enhance it. Our stumbles don't diminish i. The sacrifice of Christ is a total and unceasing and accomplished work.(John 19:30, I Cor. 1:30)"

(I believe that what that Mom did is part of the natural instinct that God places in every Mom - and Dad, for that matter. It tells you just how much pure Evil must overtake any Mom to surrender her unborn child to be killed by an abortionist. It also explains why so many struggle with that decision for the rest of their lives because they also killed a part of themselves with that decision.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Mother’s Care and Concern: The Gifts That Keep on Giving - Collette Caprara; May 9, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/09/family-fact-of-the-week-a-mothers-care-and-concern-the-gifts-that-keep-on-giving/

As the nation celebrates a day honoring mothers, it’s a great time to recognize both the immediate and long-term benefits that their involvement and investment has on their children’s well-being.

Moms’ care and concern impacts virtually every aspect of their children’s lives—from academic success to psycho/emotional health and behavior—all of which play a role in the trajectory of not only children’s futures but the future of communities and the nation.

The sensitivity that moms bring to their interaction with their children from infancy through pre-school years is a strong and consistent predictor of the social skills and behavior that they will exhibit throughout childhood. Mothers’ involvement is, likewise, inversely related to the likelihood of preschoolers’ hyperactivity, while kindergarteners who have a positive relationship with their mothers are less likely to exhibit behavioral problems and tend to have greater academic achievement in their middle school years.

The behavioral and social benefits of mothers’ care continue through the teen years. Simply asking about their children’s lives, encouraging their interests, and spending free time with them is associated with a decreased likelihood of adolescents’ behavioral problems, and youths who feel a close bond with their mothers are less likely to engage in violence. The frequent experience of family dinners, likewise, is linked to a lower risk of substance abuse among teens.

In terms of cognitive development and success in school, a mother’s involvement also makes a difference. Children whose mothers read to them in their preschool years tend to exhibit higher levels of cognitive development. Adolescents who describe their parents as highly responsive and willing to help them with their problems typically have higher levels of academic achievement, while children whose parents are more involved with their education when they are in elementary school are more likely to graduate from high school.

And, just as a mother’s care and love influences her children’s well-being, so do the standards and values she conveys. Children who do well in school are more likely to report that their mothers are not only warm and supporting but also firm. Adolescents whose mothers monitor their behavior are less likely to use alcohol, and those whose mothers discuss the social and moral consequences of being sexually active are more likely to remain abstinent, as are those whose behavior is more closely monitored.

The benefit of a mother’s nurturing increases a child’s likelihood of success and promotes his or her becoming a contributing and valuable member of society. Far more important than devising programs for children who are failing academically or suffering behavioral and emotional difficulties is to recognize and facilitate the natural root of their healthy development and well-being: the nurture and care of a loving mother.

Gratitude goes to the moms of America for their investment of care and guidance and for the “many happy returns” on that investment.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
------------------------------------------------------------------
From MikeysFunnies.com: A mother can touch a whole generation just by loving her own child well.

#211 (5/12) - A SATURDAY Special - Gone HOME to Dance With Jesus!

Dear friends,

Several weeks ago, I learned that someone who had been a student when I ministered at her campus in Hawaii over 30 years ago went Home to be with the Lord suddenly one night. Her name was Karolyn and I’ve read of how from friends of hers from back then are struggling with her passing. Their grief reminds me of what I went through 36 years ago, the first time a Christian I knew died.

I had been a Christian less than 3 years but was in full-time Christian service and attending a national conference of others in the ministry that was held in Fort Collins, Colorado. It was several days before the conference itself was to begin, and I passed a co-worker in a dorm laundry room. I barely greeted her but left thinking that there would be lots of time to talk in the days ahead. Well, the following day, she and a group of other women left for a short retreat in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. While they were there, there was a historically huge rainstorm upriver from where they were staying and the floodwaters that resulted barreled through their area, sweeping away everything in their path before any warning could be issued. Days later, they found the bodies of 7 of the women, including my co-worker June.

Obviously, this tragedy cast a dark shadow over our conference and what was supposed to be an enjoyable time of reunion and learning. (It often seems that the lessons God wants to teach us, that impact us most, occur not from what a teacher might say or a book might reveal, but from our life experiences.) I remember simply being in a daze during the week that followed, trying to understand why God would take my friend and the other women who were all only in their twenties – with their entire lives seemingly ahead of them – and who were such gifted servants of His. I had rarely been so bewildered in my life and felt as though my relatively young faith was being severely tested. But even as I struggled, I felt embarrassed to share my struggle with anyone and just isolated myself from others.

I remember on the day of the memorial service for our sisters in Christ, I sat near the very top of the huge gymnasium in which the thousands of us had gathered. I recall being shocked and almost repulsed when there was a log of singing of praise songs as the service opened. It all just made me confused as to why we could praise God when someone we know had been taken from us. I don’t remember really listening to any of the speakers until the head of our ministry, Dr. Bill Bright, went to the podium. I was sitting so high up in the stands that I could barely see him. But then, at the height of his remarks, he looked up at where I was sitting, and I saw this huge smile break out on his face. And what he said then I don’t think I’ll ever forget. As I remember it, he said, “Imagine that you have been on a long journey and your boat comes ashore to land and the first person that greets you is Jesus. THAT’S what has happened to our dear friends. They are now WITH JESUS! Even if they could return to us, they wouldn’t want to.”

Hearing those words and looking at Dr. Bright’s beatific smile, the truth of it all suddenly hit me. YES!,that was why I didn’t need to grieve for June and the other women. I could grieve that I would not have their company in this life again but I could not – should not – grieve for them. They were Home. As Jesus said in John 11: 25-26:
(25) “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;(26) and whoever lives and believes in me, will never die.”

Until then, the promise of Heaven and eternity with God was just a concept I believed in. Suddenly, it was truth and it was reality – for the believer. And that is why our time in this life is never better spent than helping as many as possible to know the Truth that is Jesus so that they too can live this life in grace and truth and be assured of their eternal Home.(I'm very sure that by the end of that service, I was singing with quite a bit of gusto.)

Finally, I remember several years ago that another friend suddenly died and passed from my life. As I walked across a parking lot heading for my car, I remember being filled with grief and sadness. Suddenly, I felt the Spirit directing me to look up at the sky and there I saw a picture of Jesus, and he was dancing with my friend! I remember then, my sadness just melting away and I just stood there with the biggest smile on my face.

One day, every believer in Jesus will also get a chance to dance with Jesus! Picture that and tell me you don’t smile.

To Karolyn: You dance, girl! - Stan

P.S.-I'd like my gravemarker to say: "Gone HOME to Dance With Jesus!"

#210 (5/11) - "Obama and the Truth About Marriage"

[NOTE: President Obama's announcement on Wednesday saying he NOW supports homosexual (I long ago stated that I will never use the term "gay" to refer to the homosexual relationships)because it is a misnomer) marriage. If he was really honest, he has long supported special rights for homosexuals (see article below) and the way the decision "evolved" was after he had weighed it in political terms. Be assured that there will be more on this that I will post later but despite what the President said, the decision was not based on biblical truth but selective truth. In the second article posted (in part), you will read about the fund-raiser he just happensed/em> to attend in Hollywood the day after his announcement. I note the following quote from that article: "Twenty-four hours ago, we were talking about what Romney had to do to get social conservatives on board," said Ralph Reed, chairman of the conservative Faith & Freedom Coalition. "Now, they're scrambling for a seat in first class."]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- by Ryan T. Anderson and Thomas Messner; May 10, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/10/obama-and-the-truth-about-marriage/

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he supports same-sex marriage. This was not exactly a surprise. Sure, when running for Senate in 2004, Obama said that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” And when campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he restated that view and also claimed he did “not support gay marriage.”

The truth, however, is that President Obama has repeatedly done and said things that directly undermine marriage as one man and one woman. President Obama has openly opposed state marriage amendments, such as Proposition 8 in California and the hugely successful amendment adopted by voters in North Carolina earlier this week. These amendments would protect marriage from judicial activism in state courts and let voters decide the question through democratic processes. But Obama views such measures as “divisive” and “discriminatory.”

President Obama also supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. And President Obama’s Justice Department has taken extraordinary steps to undermine DOMA in the courts, first by offering a soft defense and then by offering no defense at all.

These seeming inconsistencies led many to conclude that the President wasn’t really against gay marriage but was saying so for political reasons. Now, the President has finally owned up to what many people already suspected: that he supports same-sex marriage. It is good that President Obama has decided to be more straightforward about what he really believes about marriage. The American public deserves at least that much.

But the President’s so-called “evolution” on the timeless institution of marriage marks an unfortunate turn. Society has a civilizational interest in promoting marital childbearing and the faithfulness of husbands and wives to each other and their children. Marriage is a vital social institution that promotes that interest.

The reason the state is in the marriage business in the first place is because sex makes babies and babies need mothers and fathers. As one source has put it, “but for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.” That “institution” is marriage, and it brings together men and women as husbands and wives to become fathers and mothers to any children their unions bring forth. This binding together doesn’t happen by accident. Binding fathers to mothers and their children requires strong cultural and legal norms to channel adult sexual desire and behavior into an institution where childbearing leads to responsible childrearing.

Furthermore, undoubtedly one reason voters in 32 states have voted to protect marriage is the belief that, for children, the ideal situation is to have both a mother and a father. This belief is supported by social science, which demonstrates that children do best when reared by their married biological mothers and fathers. Mothering and fathering are not interchangeable phenomena. The ideal for children is love and attention from both a father and mother, as well as the role modeling that each can provide of masculinity and femininity.

By embracing same-sex marriage, President Obama has invited everyone in the nation to consider this basic issue: What is marriage? The President has sided with those who would redefine marriage by declaring that mothers and fathers are expendable and sexual complementarity does not matter. Under this view, marriage is whatever two consenting adults want it to be.But once the President accepts these ideas, can he explain why marriage should involve only two people? Can he explain why, under his conception, childrearing would continue to have any meaningful relationship to marriage? Can he explain why commitments of permanence and sexual exclusivity should be the norm for marriage? Throw away the core meaning of marriage and these cherished norms logically go with it.

There is a truth about marriage, and most people intuitively grasp that it has something to with mothers and fathers, the offspring they bear through sexual union, and the mutual cooperation required to effectively rear offspring throughout many years of dependency. The marriage debate is about whether our laws will recognize and promote this truth or, rather, label it a falsehood and force society to fall in line.

President Obama has made clear where he stands on this issue. In the coming months, voting members of the American public will have the opportunity to do the same.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama's New Strategy: Court Gay Donors, Liberal Base; Thursday, 10 May 2012; http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-clooney-gay-fundraisers/2012/05/10/id/438613?s=al&promo_code=EDE1-1

The following are excerpts from the above article: "...Obama, who was ready Thursday [the day after his homosexual marriage endorsement] to dive into the embrace of Hollywood's wealthy elite at a gala fund-raising event, said he had planned to announce his support for gay marriage before his party's convention in early September. But he told ABC News that his hand was forced by Biden, though he said his vice president spoke out in support of same-sex marriage out of a "generosity of spirit."

"The president made his historical endorsement on the eve of a sold-out fundraiser Thursday evening at the Los Angeles home of movie star George Clooney. The timing of the event is creating a blockbuster confluence of high celebrity, big money and committed activism. Hollywood is home to some of the most high-profile backers of gay marriage and the 150 donors who are paying $40,000 to attend Clooney's dinner Thursday night will no doubt feel newly invigorated by Obama's watershed announcement the day before. Overall, the dinner is expected to raise close to $15 million — ..."

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#209 (5/10) - "Got Principles? The Ryan Budget Does"

[NOTE: Under the radar of the news this week is the budget passed by the House now up before the Senate. (You'll recall the budget the President submitted was turned down by a sizeable majority in both Houses.) If you're like me, this stuff is not easy to understand. But just so you know the real solutions and vision being proposed by the House budget, I offer the following article.}
---------------------------------------------------------------
- by Patrick Louis Knudsen; April 11, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/11/got-principles-the-ryan-budget-does/

Buried deep in the President’s hyperbolic assault on the House-passed budget last week—with all that “radical vision” and “social Darwinism” rhetoric—was one kernel of truth: “This isn’t a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party,” the President said. “This is now the party’s governing platform. This is what they’re running on.”

Exactly right. The fiscal plan authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R–WI) is not just a blueprint for spending. It’s a vision for governing that deliberately and self-consciously seeks to advance “the timeless principles of the American Idea”—among them limited government, free enterprise, and economic liberty.

Ryan’s plan identifies the nation’s looming fiscal crisis as a product of big government. For the fourth consecutive year, a trillion-dollar-plus federal deficit burdens the nation, and the government’s publicly held debt is on course to exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy within a decade and to nearly double it by 2035. Clearly, this trend must be reversed.

The President’s “balanced approach” of demanding higher taxes to close the gap between spending and revenue misses the point. Deficits and debt are symptoms of a more fundamental problem: the inexorable growth of government that unfolded through the past century. It is the size and scope of government that must be limited, and that means reducing spending. That is the Ryan budget’s driving fiscal policy.

Big government is more than a budgetary problem. As government expands, it absorbs and suffocates what Ryan’s budget calls “the core institutions of a vibrant civil society—families, neighbors, churches and charities.” These institutions, not the government, are the source of America’s strength. Reducing the size of government, by reducing its spending, allows them to flourish.

Reversing the Keynesian-inspired meddling of the past several years, Ryan’s budget promotes the “prosperity of commerce,” as Hamilton termed it. The budget ends crony capitalism and other market distortions and therefore gives the economy room to grow. “This budget stops Washington from picking winners and losers across the economy,” the budget report says. “It rolls back corporate subsidies in the energy sector. It ends the taxpayer bailouts of failed financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It repeals the government takeover of health care enacted last year and begins to move toward patient-centered reform.”

Federalism and free markets are also central to the budget’s domestic policy reforms. The budget’s restructuring of Medicaid and food stamps applies the principle of federalism: It shifts more control to the states over how the programs are administered and how dollars are spent. The Medicare premium support proposal—in which future enrollees choose their coverage from a variety of plans, rather than relying solely on the government—aims to bring to retirees’ health care the same benefits of market competition that exist throughout the economy. The Ryan budget transforms a huge, government-run entitlement into a model of patient-centered reform.

Finally, in this period of widespread dysfunction in Congress, the House’s adoption of its budget resolution stands as a refreshing exception—a necessary assertion of Congress’s governing responsibility and constitutional role. Until 1974, all congressional actions on the budget were piecemeal—separate spending and tax bills—and only the President had a comprehensive budget. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, though, established for the first time a coordinated congressional budget process. It enhanced Congress’s authority on budgeting after 50 years of executive dominance. “With the Budget Act of 1974,” explains John A. Marini, “Congress became a dominant force in the formulation of fiscal policy, and a major player in setting national priorities.”

The Ryan budget may not fulfill all its ambitions perfectly; few congressional measures do. But it does express a conviction about governing rooted in America’s First Principles—a conviction reflected in its fiscal direction, its specific policies, and the very fact of its passage in the House.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#208 (5/9) - "A Better Life for Julia"

- Posted By Mike Brownfield On May 7, 2012

Her name is “Julia,” and if you haven’t seen her, she’s a colorful cartoon character invented by the Obama campaign to help spread the message of how women will “benefit” under the president’s policies. What it shows instead, though, is the president’s vision of America — that individuals need the federal government at each stage of their life, and that he deserves credit for making our lives even better. In Julia’s story, as depicted in a cartoon slideshow [1], a faceless young American woman grows from birth to old age with the government at her side every step of the way. In the good times and the bad times, government is there to lift Julia up — and without government, Julia could not succeed in life.

This disturbing depiction of the president’s governing philosophy begins when Julia turns 3, at which time she is enrolled in the federally funded Head Start pre-school program. “Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed,” the cartoon explains. Never mind that Head Start is a proven failure. Despite Washington spending more than $167 billion on the program, a recent government study shows it has had no lasting benefits.

But this is only the beginning. According to the cartoon, thanks to President Obama’s policies, Julia is prepared for college, can afford to pay for college, has free health care, can repay for her student loans, enjoys free birth control, can have a child and give him a good education, can start a new business and hire employees, and can comfortably retire to a life of volunteering at a community garden. From birth to death, President Obama wants the federal government to carry Julia on its shoulders, and he wants to take credit for all the blessings of a life well-lived. That’s the liberal vision of America.

What’s missing from this picture? The harm that big government policies inflict on people like Julia. From the moment of birth, thanks to Washington’s thirst for more spending, Julia is burdened by tens of thousands of dollars in debt [2]. Despite the federal government subsidizing college tuition (including increasing Pell grants by 475 percent since 1980), costs of attending college have increased 439 percent since 1982. Under the president’s health care plan, millions of families will be dropped from their employer-based health care plans and dumped into government-run exchanges. What about the promise of jobs under the president’s economy? America has had 39 straight months of unemployment over 8 percent. And when it comes to retirement, Julia is in big trouble. According to the government’s estimates, Social Security will be bankrupt by 2033 unless Congress enacts serious reforms.

There’s another vision — a conservative vision. The Heritage Foundation created its own version of the “Julia” cartoon (see [3] below)and showed how individuals would benefit under conservative reforms like those in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream (see [4] below). Instead of growing government and increasing its involvement in our lives, conservative policies restrain government and give individuals more freedom to make their own choices and succeed on their own merits.

With reforms to education and expanded school choice, Julia’s parents will be able to give her the education she deserves. Innovations in higher education will control costs and make it more affordable for Julia to attend college without sinking into debt. Julia and her family will be able to purchase a health insurance plan that fits their needs, she will have more freedom to pursue the kind of job she wants, a reformed tax system will make it easier for Julia to invest and grow a business, and her retirement is more secure thanks to personal savings and a stronger Social Security program.

The conservative vision for Julia’s future is one that empowers her as an individual — not one that pegs her successes to the expansion of the federal government. Be sure to view Heritage’s “A Better Life for Julia” [3] on The Foundry.

[bold and italics emphasis]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/07/morning-bell-a-better-life-for-julia/

URLs in this post:
[1] depicted in a cartoon slideshow: http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia
[2] tens of thousands of dollars in debt: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/national-debt-burden
[3] The Heritage Foundation created its own version of the “Julia” cartoon: http://blog.heritage.org/a-better-life-for-julia/
[4] Saving the American Dream: http://www.savingthedream.org/about-the-plan/

#207 (5/8)- (Is France's New Socialist President Another Obama?) - "Weak Economy Disappoints Again"

[NOTE: In case you missed it, over the weekend, France replaced it's more conservative President Sarkozy who was dealing with the extreme debt and economic crisis of the country with spending cuts and various 'austerity' measures. (Radical things - like asking people to not retire at 60(!) but at 62. That, of course, led youth to riot in the streets! As much as I worry about how the policies we allow today endanger the future of our youth, I wonder if they will inherit the tragedy they are reaping themselves.)They've put in office someone who vows to increase taxes on the rich and increase government spending. HE is a member of the Socialist Party and the mainstream news media easily calls him a socialist. AND YET, just try and call President Obama a socialist for advocating the same (see article below), and you are treated with derision. Can anyone say hypocrisy and cover-up and political correctness!]
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Posted By Mike Brownfield; May 4, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/04/morning-bell-weak-economy-disappoints-again/print/?roi=echo3-11911105316-8576175-90b317f4c226d2ec7289dc860f45919a&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Every day, America waits for a brighter future to arrive — the promise of change that President Barack Obama made in 2009 [1] when he set a benchmark for his success on the economy, remarking, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” More than three years later, very little has changed. As today’s jobs report shows [2], the U.S. economy only added 115,000 jobs in April — well below expectations and far, far below what is necessary to drive the economy back to full employment.

Lackluster employment results dominate today’s report. It’s been three years under the Obama policies, and 12.5 million Americans remain out of work. No demographic group except black workers saw an improvement in their unemployment rate, and 13 percent of black workers remain unemployed. What’s more, the labor force participation fell to the lowest level since 1981 at 63.6 percent. Americans are fleeing this economy when at this stage workers should be returning to the labor force.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. While little has changed with the economy, little has changed in President Obama’s failed policies. Rampant federal spending continues unchecked; the debt continues to grow; a monstrous tax hike is set to hit Americans on January 1, 2013, infecting the economy with renewed and debilitating uncertainty [3], and the country’s energy policy remains in shambles.

The latest example of the president’s recycling of his Administration’s failed ideas came in a speech this week to the Building and Construction Trades Department Conference. Obama used the opportunity to pander to his Big Labor allies and called for more federal spending on infrastructure as a panacea for job creation, claiming that his proposals would put “hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work repairing our roads, our bridges, schools, transit systems.”

But here’s something to remember: President Obama’s near-trillion-dollar stimulus — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — was intended to inject demand into the economy and spur the creation of new jobs. That’s the very same theory the president is still advocating today. Apparently, it’s all he knows. It didn’t work then, it’s not going to work now.

Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen explains [4] that dumping taxpayer money into projects like these “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ unionized construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” But it still costs money — money the government gets by borrowing and thereby reducing private sector spending — so of course there’s no net job growth or economic boost for their “investment.”

The president’s call for more spending to boost a stagnant economy also exacerbates an already-serious problem: the national debt. As Heritage’s 2012 Edition of the Federal Budget in Pictures [5] shows, federal spending per household is skyrocketing and is projected to rise to $34,602 per household by 2022 [6]. And because all that spending exceeds revenue by more than $1 trillion [7], America’s debt is continuing to grow, hitting 101 percent [8] of GDP by 2021. Ultimately, this threatens to boost the country’s already-high tax burden, further discouraging investment and job creation.

That tax burden is set to get even worse in 2013 with the advent of Taxmageddon [9] –a combined 34 percent increase in taxes resulting from the expiration of existing tax policies and the imposition of new ones. Ironically enough, President Obama once said [10] that raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. And though America is not in a recession today, it still suffers high unemployment, and raising taxes will still have the same negative effect that the president claimed he wanted to avoid — higher tax burdens on workers and job creators hamper economic growth. Yet the president is sitting back in the face of the 2013 tax nightmare, apparently content to slam the economy for the sake of big government, while also calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and job creators ostensibly as a way to make society more “fair.” But really he’s just trying to distract the nation from his failed policies.

Throw in an energy policy that seeks to punish oil and natural gas companies, prevent the exploration of domestic resources, waste money on fruitless “green jobs” programs, and impose new regulations that make energy more expensive, and you have a recipe for the economic stagnation that America is seeing today.

The American people are not and should not be satisfied with 8 percent unemployment, an economy that’s inching along, and a spending-induced fiscal crisis that remains unresolved. The U.S. economy has great potential that’s just waiting to be unleashed. With the right policies — like those proposed in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream [11] plan — the United States can solve the national debt crisis, reduce government spending, and get the economy back on track.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/04/morning-bell-weak-economy-disappoints-again/

URLs in this post:
[1] made in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCN5-ovvFL0
[2] today’s jobs report shows: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
[3] debilitating uncertainty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-shouldnt-delay-in-addressing-the-fiscal-cliff/2012/05/03/gIQAx3F0zT_story.html
[4] explains: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/08/reaction-roundup-heritage-responds-to-obamas-jobs-speech/
[5] Federal Budget in Pictures: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/
[6] $34,602 per household by 2022: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/federal-spending-per-household
[7] exceeds revenue by more than $1 trillion: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/growth-federal-spending-revenue
[8] hitting 101 percent: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/national-debt-skyrocket
[9] Taxmageddon: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/05/morning-bell-beware-the-Taxmageddon/
[10] once said: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html
[11] Saving the American Dream: http://www.savingthedream.org/about-the-plan/


Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism Rises Again, By Mike Brownfield, May 8, 2012 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/08/morning-bell-socialism-rises-again/print/?roi=echo3-11938290460-8603392-5bed3ba469b2db0a73f8a29315a22806&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

"...If you’ve been a student of President Obama’s presidency, much of this should sound familiar. President Obama came into office on a promise of hope and change, appealed to young Americans and promised renewed prosperity. His solution was more government spending to the tune of a near-trillion-dollar stimulus, a government-run health care plan, a bailout of government unions, and a call for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations..."

[scroll DOWN for #206 (5/6)]; #205 (5/5) - Blind Activist Showdown Resurfaces One-Child Debate

[NOTE: Here's another perspective of this news story you are NOT hearing much about from the mainstream media. And then, there is the fact that he is a Christian.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- By Paul Strand CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent, May 04,2012http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/January/Group-Challenges-Chinas-One-Child-Policy-/

- Meetings between the United States and China over the future of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng has brought the country's one-child policy back to the forefront.

The Chinese government put Chen under house arrest for his work exposing the policy that has resulted in forced abortions and sterilization.It's an issue that many are bringing before the United States government.

"The one-child policy causes more violence towards women and girls than any other official policy on earth and any other official policy in the history of the world. It's China's war on women and girls," Reggie Littlejohn, a human rights activist with Women's Rights Without Frontiers, told CBN News.

Countless children are forcibly aborted in China because their parents already had met the communist country's legal limit of one child. CBN News spoke with Chai Ling, founder of All Girls Allowed... Littlejohn called the one-child policy a crime against humanity. "For the Communist Chinese Party to force its bloody hand right into a woman's womb and crush the life in there against her will is a heinous crime against humanity," he said.

Currently, over 35,000 forced and coerced abortions occur in China every day. [There are around 4,000 voluntary abortion in the US every day.]"No wonder 500 women per day - not per week, per month - but per day commit suicide in China, the results of this horrific one child per couple policy," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said.

Chai Ling, founder of All Girls Allowed, which focuses on women's rights in China, was also at the press conference. Ling, a former Tiananmen Square ringleader, works to protect Chinese girls from selective sex abortion which may have killed 100 million girls, according to estimates. She passionately appealed to President Obama as a father to urge the communist nation to abolish its deadly practice."Just imagine among your two beautiful children. All you're allowed to have is one. The other one has to be put to death," Chai said.

Chai ended her statement by praying for China's president to rid his land of what she views as an atrocity."We pray for him to have an open mind and changed heart by the end of this week when he returns to China," she said.

Meanwhile, Littlejohn warned that powerful opinion-shapers want China's one child policy to spread worldwide. "Ted Turner has repeatedly stated that he believes that the entire world should adopt the one-child policy, including the United States," he said.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Activists Urge Action on China's One-Child Policy
- By Paul Strand, CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent, 11/17/09
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/November/Activists-Urge-Action-Against-Chinas-One-Child-Policy/

[scroll down for #204 (5/4)] #203 (5/2) - A Year Later: bin Laden, NOT al-Qaeda, Is Dead; The Shame of Taking Rather Than Giving Credit

[NOTE: The first article below describes how the "war on terror" is not over as some in the administration claimed last week in an over-the-top attempt to politically highlight the marking of the killing of bin Laden a year ago. The second article describes the outrage felt by current and former Navy Seals on how the President has shined the light on himself as having taken out bin Laden. It is shameful not just when a leader takes credit for what was years of work begun long before he took office and taking credit for something that should fully be given to those who risked their lives to accomplish the mission.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Year after Osama bin Laden’s Death: Al-Qaeda Alive and Kicking April 27, 2012 - by Morgan Lorraine Roach
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/27/a-year-after-osama-bin-ladens-death-al-qaeda-alive-and-kicking/

Nearly a year ago, America did the world a favor and killed Osama bin Laden. Now the Obama Administration is taking credit for al-Qaeda’s defeat. Not so fast!

Since 9/11, the United States has foiled 50 terrorist plots on U.S. soil, including two so far this year. In January, Sami Oskazac, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kosovo, was arrested on charges of planning attacks against night clubs, businesses, and a sheriff’s office. A month later, Amine El Khalifi, a Moroccan citizen illegally in the U.S., was arrested on charges of plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol. While both of these were cases of radicalized individuals working alone, they nevertheless adhered to al-Qaeda ideology and terrorist tactics.

Further from home, al-Qaeda is playing the waiting game in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As President Obama draws down U.S. troops in Afghanistan and attempts to negotiate with the Taliban—which has renounced neither al-Qaeda nor terrorism—al-Qaeda is waiting until the U.S. troops leave to make a comeback. Furthermore, Pakistan has been ineffective at cracking down on the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network. Islamabad’s tolerance of such groups has facilitated al-Qaeda’s ability to operate and has turned Pakistan into a safe haven for terrorists.

Bin Laden’s death was no doubt a blow to the al-Qaeda network. However, al-Qaeda’s ability to adapt to challenges has made the organization difficult to defeat. As such, al-Qaeda is diversifying its network, making significant inroads into Iraq and Yemen and throughout Africa. In February, al-Shabab and al-Qaeda formalized relations. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is taking advantage of the instability brought on by the collapse of the Muammar Qadhafi regime in Libya. Boko Haram, Nigeria’s insurgent group, continues to wreak havoc across the country, having been trained and resourced by AQIM and al-Shabab.

If bin Laden’s death has proved anything, it’s that his legacy has survived. Al-Qaeda will outlive any of its leaders. Now is not the time for complacency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SEALs: Obama Taking Credit for bin Laden 'Cheap Shot'Tuesday, 01 May 2012 By Martin Gould
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SEALs-Obama-binLaden-/2012/04/30/id/437580?s=al&promo_code=ECB6-1

Current and former US Navy SEALs have joined the attacks on President Barack Obama for attempting to take credit for killing Osama bin Laden and using them and Special Forces members as 'ammunition' for his campaign. Author and former SEAL Brandon Webb told Newsmax that Obama's White House predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves much of the praise for taking out the world's most wanted man. And other SEALs bashed the president to Britain's MailOnline after Obama released a campaign ad called "One Chance," to coincide with this week’s first anniversary of the raid that killed the al-Qaida figurehead. The ad features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama's decision to order bin Laden killed, and suggests that his Republican rival Mitt Romney might not have made the same call. It has already been criticized by all sides, with even Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, calling it “despicable.”

Webb, author of the book "The Red Circle" about his work training snipers, told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that Obama "inherited a pretty robust system," from Bush."This whole process to get (bin Laden) started when George W. was standing on a pile of rubble at Ground Zero saying to the American people, 'the people who knocked these buildings down are going to hear from us."Fortunately, Obama was in a position to finish what George W. started," added Webb.

And Chris Kyle, the former SEAL credited with a record 160 confirmed killings, called the Obama ad “a cheap shot.” “He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican,” Kyle told the Mail’s Toby Harnden. “Obama is taking more credit than he is due.”

... Montana State Rep. Ryan Zinke, a former Navy commander who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, called Obama’s decision “a no-brainer” in the Mail article. “I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call,” said Zinke, a Republican from Whitefish. “Every president would have done the same. “He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice — it was a broader team effort." Zinke slammed Obama for exploiting bin Laden’s death. "The president and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable."

One unidentified current SEAL told the Mail, "Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn, he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because his speechwriters are smart. "But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, 'Come on, man!' It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go."

Former sniper Kyle said Obama shouldn't take the credit. "The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it,” he said. "But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned, and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot."

The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday claimed that by turning the targeted killing into an election issue, Obama risked becoming the most polarizing president since Richard Nixon. “Voters aren't likely to believe that any Presidential candidate would fail to pursue the man who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11,” the Journal pointed out. “The question all of this raises is—why? Why would an incumbent President feel the need to campaign like this?”
Special: Will Obama Be Beaten? Vote Here.

Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt said the decision to turn the anniversary of the terrorist’s killing into an election issue “mucked up what should have been one of the president’s best days of the campaign.” “The only thing required to benefit from association with the killing of the most hated man in the nation is to be magnanimous about the whole affair – smile broadly, downplay your own role with a wink and congratulate the brave men who did the job,” said Stirewalt.

“Obama almost managed to do that, but his campaign couldn’t resist going negative.”
The White House is marking the anniversary of bin Laden's death Tuesday with a series of briefings and interviews designed to highlight Obama's decision that day.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.