#1514 (2/29) "The Lure of Socialism"

"THE LURE OF SOCIALISM" - Thomas Sowell | Feb 17, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/02/17/the-lure-of-socialism-n2120485/page/full [AS I SEE IT: It is a sad commentary on so many of the young adults (and possibly future leaders of our country ... or not) that their education - while so much more advanced than what I learned in college almost 40 years ago - is absent of what history has taught us about socialism. It also seems to reflect a selfishness that wants things for free rather than consider the REAL consequences to themselves and future generations. It's not just sad but very scary for America's future. For too many, they are not receiving an education but a brain-washing...and they don't seem to realize it. If they ever get what they want, the joke will be on them while the rest of us are also stuck with the tragic consequences. - Stan]

Many people of mature years are amazed at how many young people have voted for Senator Bernie Sanders, and are enthusiastic about the socialism he preaches. Many of those older people have lived long enough to have seen socialism fail, time and again, in countries around the world. Venezuela, with all its rich oil resources, is currently on the verge of economic collapse, after its heady fling with socialism. But, most of the young have missed all that, and their dumbed-down education is far more likely to present the inspiring rhetoric of socialism than to present its dismal track record.

Socialism is in fact a wonderful vision -- a world of the imagination far better than any place anywhere in the real world, at any time over the thousands of years of recorded history. Even many conservatives would probably prefer to live in such a world, if they thought it was possible. Who would not want to live in a world where college was free, along with many other things, and where government protected us from the shocks of life and guaranteed our happiness? It would be Disneyland for adults!

Free college of course has an appeal to the young, especially those who have never studied economics. But college cannot possibly be free. It would not be free even if there was no such thing as money.

Consider the costs of just one professor teaching just one course. He or she has probably spent more than 20 years being educated, from kindergarten to the Ph.D., before ending up standing in front of a class and trying to convey some of the knowledge picked up in all those years. That means being fed, clothed and housed all those years, along with other expenses. All the people who grew the food, manufactured the clothing and built the housing used by this one professor, for at least two decades, had to be compensated for their efforts, or those efforts would not continue. And of course someone has to produce food, clothing and shelter for all the students in this one course, as well as books, computers and other requirements or amenities. Add up all these costs -- and multiply by a hundred or so -- and you have a rough idea of what going to college costs. Whether these costs are paid by using money in a capitalist economy or by some other mechanism in a feudal economy, a socialist economy, or whatever, there are heavy costs to pay.

Moreover, under any economic system, those costs are either going to be paid or there are not going to be any colleges. Money is just an artificial device for getting real things done. Those young people who understand this, whether clearly or vaguely, are not likely to be deterred from wanting socialism. Because what they really want is for somebody else to pay for their decision to go to college.

A market economy is one in which whoever makes a decision is the one who pays for that decision. It forces people to be sure that what they want to do is really worth what it is going to cost. Even the existing subsidies of college have led many people to go to college who have very little interest in, or benefit from, going to college, except for enjoying the social scene while postponing adult responsibilities for a few years.

Whether judging by test results, by number of hours per week devoted to studying or by on-campus interviews, it is clear that today's college students learn a lot less than college students once did. If college becomes "free," even more people can attend college without bothering to become educated and without acquiring re any economically meaningful skills.

More fundamentally, making all sorts of other things "free" means more of those things being wasted as well. Even worse, it means putting more and more of the decisions that shape our lives into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who control the purse strings.

Obamacare has given us a foretaste of what that means in reality, despite how wonderful it may sound in political rhetoric.

Worst of all, government giveaways polarize society into segments, each trying to get what it wants at somebody else's expense, creating mutual bitterness that can tear a society apart. Some seem to blithely assume that "the rich" can be taxed to pay for what they want -- as if "the rich" don't see what is coming and take their wealth elsewhere.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
Creators Syndicate

#1513 (2/28) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "The 'Risen' Movie - AN UNBELIEVER CONFRONTS THE EMPTY TOMB"

"The 'Risen' Movie - AN UNBELIEVER CONFRONTS THE EMPTY TOMB" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: 2/19/16;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28896

Christian audiences have felt a little burned lately by bad movies on biblical subjects. But one really good movie can change all that.

“Ben Hur,” “The Robe,” “The Ten Commandments,” “Quo Vadis?”—who can forget the golden age of biblical films? But that was the 1950s, and this is 2016. Biblically based movies these days often comes across as, well, less than inspired. Writers and directors sometimes play fast and loose with the source material, leaving out crucial details and inventing some bizarre stuff. Worse, portrayals of God often come across as flippant or even blasphemous. And that’s just not something I enjoy watching.

Well, I want to urge you to give the genre another chance. Because a film [just] hitting theaters ... proves that swords-and-sandals productions based on the Bible can still hold their own against “Ben Hur.” 

“Risen,” directed by Kevin Reynolds and starring Joseph Fiennes, is the story of the manhunt for the corpse of Jesus Christ. Spoiler alert: They don’t find it. 

Fiennes plays a Roman tribune named Clavius. He’s tasked by Pontius Pilate with crucifying the latest batch of Jewish rabble and self-proclaimed messiahs. The only catch? One of them really is the Messiah. Of course Clavius, a good Roman military man, doesn’t think anything of Jesus. When the centurion at Golgotha admits, “Surely this Man was the Son of God,” Clavius lets him have it. Clavius is tough, and he’s immune to Jewish superstition—that is, until Sunday morning. For Clavius, that’s when all Heaven breaks loose.

The tomb is empty, the guards aren’t talking, and the Disciples of Jesus are spreading the news that He’s come back to life. The high priest warns Pilate that they’ll have an uprising on their hands if he doesn’t put the resurrection story to rest. So Pilate sends Clavius on a grisly, CSI-style hunt for the body of Christ. That’s when our tribune has an encounter that shakes his pagan worldview to the core. “I have seen two things which cannot reconcile,” he says. “A man dead without question, and that same man alive again.”

Everyone on our BreakPoint team who’s seen the film loves it, not just because it’s a respectful and riveting portrayal of the gospel accounts, but because it shows an unbeliever’s crisis of faith when confronted by the Risen Lord.

In anticipation of Easter, I cannot think of a better reminder of how Christianity, as Tim Keller puts it, forces us to “doubt our doubts.” The empty tomb is the most startling fact of history—something two millennia of skeptics have tried to explain away. But the evidence is just too strong. And “Risen,” like a good detective novel, follows that evidence where it leads.

For instance, the Roman officials and Jewish leaders had every motive to produce a body. Yet they couldn’t. And Jesus’ Disciples had nothing to gain and everything to lose from lying about the Resurrection. But their transformation from cowards to spiritual conquerors testifies that they, like Fiennes’ fictional character, saw something—or Someone—who rocked their worlds.

Joe Fiennes, whom I had the pleasure of interviewing on the “Eric Metaxas Show,” told BreakPoint that he expects this movie to touch audiences in a unique way precisely because it invites them to examine these events through the eyes of a non-believer.

I think “Risen” has the potential to spark a renaissance of solidly biblical movies. But more importantly, I think it will challenge audiences to confront, with Clavius, the question that defies doubters to this day: If Jesus is dead, then where is the body?

Go see “Risen.” And take some unbelieving friends with you.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
The "Risen" movie official website - http://www.risen-movie.com/

#1512 (2/27) PRO-LIFE SAT: "A Must-See Movie for Those Who Want to End Abortion"

"A MUST-SEE MOVIE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO END ABORTION" - Maria Gallagher,Feb.18, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/18/a-must-see-movie-for-those-who-want-to-end-abortion/ [AS I SEE IT: While the srrest did get some mention in the national news, it's telling that this movie has failed to get any publicity. Truly, this man could qualify as a serial killer unlike anyone we've heard of but because he's tied to the abortion industry, he is barely mentioned by the mainstream press. Sadly, it doesn't surprise. - Stan]
 
“The People v. O.J. Simpson” is a five-part television mini-series which has engaged a segment of the American public. The series is about the two people brutally murdered in 1994 and the trial that ensued in 1995. It was described as the trial of the (20th) century.

Meanwhile, in theaters, churches, and other venues across the nation, other Americans are drawn to a documentary which depicts what by rights should be described as the crime of this century-the murder of innocent babies and the maiming and killing of women by Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

I have to confess that I approached the film “3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy” with some trepidation. The last and only horror movie I saw filled me with such fear I could never approach the genre again. And make no mistake, Gosnell’s sordid tale is a horror story-a story of delivering huge babies alive and then murdering them by cutting their spinal cords while others were left struggling in toilets gasping for air; and inexplicably severing feet and keeping them in jars for posterity.

For me, one of the most poignant moments in the film is when a young woman discovers that one of those severed babies’ feet belongs to her own baby-the child she lost in Gosnell’s House of Horrors.

Despite my own squeamishness, I would encourage every pro-life activist-indeed, every American adult-to see “3801 Lancaster.” The significance of the film might best be summarized by Pennsylvania state Senator John Rafferty, who is quoted as saying, “We’ve allowed a man to butcher babies…butcher women, and nobody did a damn thing about it.”

Thanks to an exhaustive investigation by a grand jury, we know that the Pennsylvania Department of State knew that at least one woman had died in Gosnell’s facility, but did nothing. The Philadelphia Department of Health failed to act, and the Pennsylvania Health Department refused to inspect the abortion center for 17 years.

As the grand jury stated, pro-abortion politics kept inspectors away-if health regulators had found evidence of lax care, it could, in their view, threaten “access” to abortion-a practice more sacred in their opinion than innocent human life.

One of the eerie aspects of “3801 Lancaster” is hearing Gosnell calmly attempt to justify his actions, steadfastly maintaining his innocence. He sounds erudite, even affable-a sharp juxtaposition from the abortionist who dealt so coldly with his patients. The question is asked: What happened to change him from a legitimate doctor to a symbol of evil?

I would argue that what happened to him was abortion. Routinely taking innocent life-the most defenseless, the most vulnerable lives-has to have an effect on a person. If power corrupts, the power to kill through abortion corrupts absolutely.

Gosnell might have set out to help poor women–he fancies himself a man of the people– but he ended up butchering them, and, in the view of the grand jury, killed hundreds of full-term babies. If Gosnell is a monster, and there is little doubt of that, he is the monster that the abortion industry created.

Perhaps the scene in the movie that haunts me the most is a young African-American woman describing her experience at the hands of Gosnell. She appears as if when the life of her unborn child was sucked out of her, so was a part of her life removed. She said she thought she could trust this man because he was a doctor-she had been taught to trust doctors, in fact. But that trust was horribly violated, a violation she lives with everyday.

Not all of Gosnell’s victims died. Some walk among us, haunted by the crimes he committed against their families, brutalized not only by a man, but the industry that gave rise to the brute.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#1511 (2/26) "The Growing Threat of ISIS Unleashing a Weapon of Mass Destruction"

"THE GROWING THREAT OF ISIS UNLEASHING A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION"- James Phillips/ Brooke Branson/ Feb.19, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/19/the-growing-threat-of-isis-unleashing-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/ [AS I SEE IT: I saw a news report just today (2/26) that showed how ISIS seems to have used chemical weapons against Kurdish militia in Northern Iraq recently. We must pray that intelligence sources can confirm these attacks and that the international community might finally see cause to unite more effectively to destroy this most dangerous terrorist state. That WMDs could be exported to America and other countries in the West should be enough to spur us to greater action than we have thus far. I also just happened to read a fictional book, "The Third Target" (released last year), that paints a horrific picture of what chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS would look like based on what we know of them. Scary stuff. - Stan]

Sinjar, Iraq which was invaded by ISIS in August of 2014. (Photo: Alessandro Rota/Sipa USA/Newscom)

The apocalyptic ideology that propels the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) is by now well known. Much less widely known are the use of chemical weapons by ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the disappearance of radioactive materials in Iraq that could be used in a “dirty bomb,” a radiological weapon of mass destruction (WMD).

Reuters reported the disappearance of 10 grams of a “highly dangerous” radioactive isotope used to test oil and gas pipelines in southern Iraq, which Iraqi authorities fear may have fallen into the hands of ISIS. The Iridium-192 material, classified as a Category 2 radioactive source, could permanently injure people exposed to it for only a few hours, or kill people exposed to it longer.

The radioactive isotope was stolen in November from a storage facility in the southern city of al-Zubair, which is more than 300 miles away from ISIS-controlled territory. But ISIS has launched attacks nearby.Ten grams of radioactive material is not very much. But it could be added to other materials previously seized by the terrorist group. ISIS already had enough radioactive materials to arm a dirty bomb, according to Australian intelligence reports last June.

The U.S. State Department announced that it has seen no evidence that the missing Iridium-192 has turned up in the hands of ISIS or other terrorist groups. But it is also possible that the material was stolen by a criminal organization that could sell it to a terrorist group.

The New York Times yesterday reported that Belgian police disrupted a suspected plot to obtain radioactive materials from one of Belgium’s four nuclear sites for a possible dirty bomb, which was devised by the same ISIS-linked terrorist network that perpetrated the Paris bombings in November.

ISIS declared its intention to develop WMD last year in its propaganda magazine, Dabiq. While detonating a dirty bomb could have a huge psychological effect, its lethality would likely be limited.

A much more immediate concern is the use of chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria by ISIS.
CIA Director John Brennan told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday that ISIS has detonated chemical munitions on battlefields in Iraq and Syria and it has the capability to make small quantities of chlorine and mustard gas.

ISIS has long harbored ambitions to acquire and use chemical weapons. Abu Musab Zarqawi, the founder of its forerunner, al-Qaeda in Iraq, was known to have a special interest in chemical weapons. He was known to have experimented with chemical weapons at his training camp in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. Zarqawi also was linked to a foiled plot in Jordan in 2004 to kill thousands of people with poison gas.

Al-Qaeda, which ISIS broke away from, also has long sought nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction. Osama bin Laden declared that acquiring weapons of mass destruction was a “religious duty” in a December 1998 interview with Time Magazine. Al-Qaeda conducted poison gas experiments on dogs in Afghanistan. Bin Laden tried to buy uranium for a nuclear device as early as 1993 and al-Qaeda had an ambitious anthrax program that was discovered in December 2001.

Today, ISIS is following a similar path. In November, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials warned that ISIS had established a branch to aggressively develop chemical weapons with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

These efforts may have been boosted when ISIS seized the Al Muthanna State Establishment, the former center of Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare program, in June 2014. Although the chemical munitions stored there reportedly were decaying and unfit for military use, the Islamic State may have found a way to safely transport and use them. The United States discovered more than 4,500 chemical munitions in Iraq after invading in 2003, although all of them appeared to have been manufactured before the 1991 gulf war.

The United States and its allies must work relentlessly to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorist organizations by cracking down on the smuggling of weapons and dual-use technologies; conducting sting operations to remove buyers and sellers from circulation; and helping various governments (particularly those in the former Soviet bloc and Pakistan) to bolster security around nuclear, chemical, and biological facilities.

But the best defense would be to eradicate ISIS and other terrorist organizations as soon as possible, or at least to eliminate sanctuaries where they can experiment with and develop increasingly dangerous forms of WMD.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

James Phillips is the senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He has written extensively on Middle Eastern issues and international terrorism since 1978. Read his research. Brooke Branson is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

See also: "Why Iraq’s Chemical Weapons Are a Lingering Threat" - http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/17/iraqs-chemical-weapons-lingering-threat/,
" Syrian WMD: Counter-proliferation Contingency Planning Needed" - file:///C:/Users/Stan/Downloads/ib3518%20(5).pdf, 
"Dealing with Dirty Bombs: Plain Facts, Practical Solutions" - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/dealing-with-dirty-bombs-plain-facts-practical-solutions

#1510 (2/25) "Obama’s Final Year Could Be His Most Dangerous"

"OBAMA'S FINAL YEAR COULD BE HIS MOST DANGEROUS" - Steven Bucci/ Feb.23, 2016;
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/obamas-final-year-could-be-his-most-dangerous/ [AS I SEE IT: You can add to the list of things the President has tried to push forward in this, his last year in office - insisting on filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court and on closing Guantanamo. It seems the list just gets longer with each passing week. - Stan]

The president cannot be allowed to run roughshod over the interests of the American people based on his wishes, legacy, or fears. (Photo: Aude Guerrucci/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

In the military, it is well known that the most dangerous time on any operation or deployment is not at the beginning when you are least experienced, but in the final time period, just before you complete your “tour of duty”. This seems counter intuitive, but is true nonetheless. Scarily, this is also true for President Barack Obama’s final year in office.

As a unit or an individual rolls into the last part of a time overseas, or in combat, three phenomena occur. First, you recognize that you may not be able to get everything done that you planned to accomplish. This causes you to push harder to stuff them in, perhaps with negative results. Next, everyone starts to think about home, and the things that are ahead, after the finish line is crossed, even though it is still in the future. That “daydreaming” can cause one to get sloppy, to forget to do some of the small things that have kept you alive up to that point. The results can be deadly. 

At the opposite end, the third effect is when one can become so fixated on getting done and out of there, that risk aversion takes over. In an effort to protect yourself from being the “last casualty”, you actually increase your changes of being hurt by no longer doing what was “working” all along. These three effects can often have catastrophic results. In the military, it is the job of the leader to ensure this doesn’t happen. But what if the leader is the one affected?

This is the danger of Obama’s last year. He has already shown a propensity to force actions that he wants done as part of his “legacy”, at times using dubious Constitutional actions to accomplish them. Opening Cuba, the nuclear deal with Iran, and threat over immigration and gun rights are all examples of Obama’s over reach.

In his desire to bask in the glow he expects to feel as the “former president” Obama has grown even more sanctimonious and preachy, ridiculing anyone who opposes his ideas, or questions his motives. His most recent State of the Union Address was replete with sarcasm and dismissiveness toward any and all who took any view but complete acceptance of his point of view.

Lastly, his already weak foreign policy initiatives have grown ever more impotent. He has left it to Secretary of State John Kerry, whose lack of anything approaching negotiating skills has allowed Iran, Russia, and China to run rings around America at every turn.

Obama has shown all the dangerous tendencies of a man in his last stretch of a difficult deployment.

Unfortunately for the United States, he is the leader who should be keeping everyone else from falling into these traps. When it is a president who is succumbing to these failings who can protect America from the stumbles that are likely to occur? Particularly since Obama has little capacity to accurately gauge his own weakness, and never wants to hear criticism from anyone of his sycophant subordinates.

Congress must step up. As the other operational branch of the government given us by the Constitution, they must play a bigger role. The president cannot be allowed to run roughshod over the interests of the American people based on his wishes, legacy, or fears. As the peoples’ representatives, Congress must act to reign in the dangerous propensities of Obama’s last year.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Steven P. Bucci, who served America for three decades as an Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, is a visiting research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

#1509 (2/24) "Why Assisted Suicide is a Poison Pill - PUSHING BACK THE CULTURE OF DEATH"

"Why Assisted Suicide is a Poison Pill - PUSHING BACK THE CULTURE OF DEATH" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: Feb.22, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28906

The culture of death is claiming new victims -- not only at the beginning of life but also at the end of life. Why killing is never compassion. . .

Are there ever times when deliberately taking an innocent human life is okay? What if our intentions are merciful? What if we’re trying to relieve the suffering of one we love?

My home state of Colorado is asking these questions right now. A bill before the legislature would make us the fifth state to legalize assisted suicide, following Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California. Sponsors of the bill are proposing it under the commonly used name “Death with Dignity.” That’s a euphemism for killing elderly and terminally-ill patients by giving them a cocktail of toxic drugs. And unlike abortion, which has become less and less justifiable with the availability of ultrasound and neonatal care, it’s easy to make physician-assisted suicide sound compassionate.

“I feel that it’s a basic human right to be in charge of your own destiny,” says assisted suicide proponent Lance Wright. “The situation now is that you and I are not in control of what happens at the end of our lives.” Wright thinks that we should be in control, and that assisted suicide is the means. Many agree with him, and it’s not hard to see why. Writing at Linkedin, emergency physician Louis Profeta describes the grisly details of what it looks like when doctors keep dying patients alive at all costs:

“Nearly 50 percent of the elderly US population,” he writes, “now die in nursing homes or hospitals…surrounded by teams of us doctors and nurses, medical students, respiratory therapists and countless other health care providers pounding on their chests, breaking their ribs, burrowing large IV lines into burned-out veins and plunging tubes into swollen and bleeding airways,” all to delay the inevitable.

Profeta contrasts this with a time when the terminally ill and elderly slipped away quietly at home, surrounded by loved ones who offered comfort. He admits to fearing a day when physicians like him who’ve given aggressive end-of-life treatment will face God, Who’ll ask them, “What  . . .  were you thinking?”

All right. Let’s begin by clearly stating that valuing life does not mean staving off death at all costs. We who believe in the resurrection of the body should be the first to reject this notion. But we’ve got to reject speeding up death through so-called “death with dignity” as the answer as well. As hospice volunteer Krista Kafer explains at The Federalist, when we elevate suicide as a solution, it exerts a “poisonous effect on the practice of medicine,” directly contradicting the Hippocratic Oath, which binds physicians never to “give a deadly drug to anybody who asks for it.”

Offering a poison pill to patients in pain distorts the motives of all involved. Insurance companies, hospital staff, government agencies, and even family members suddenly have an increased financial stake in a speedy death. And as we’ve seen in other countries, lines of “consent” and “futility” can blur, and even patients with psychological issues, like depression and schizophrenia, often become targets.

What’s more, the emotional appeal of assisted suicide depends on a false dilemma. Weeks of agonizing, futile treatment, or death-by-doctor are not the only choices. Kafer suggests that hospice and palliative care are viable, humane, life-affirming options for the dying. I’ll link you to resources on these options at BreakPoint.org. [see below]

In the meantime, we have our work cut out for us. With a cascade of states turning caregivers into potential executioners, we’ve got to help our neighbors understand that although assisted-suicide may sound compassionate and dignified, it’s neither. It just dehumanizes patients and physicians. As 1 Samuel 2 says, “The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
"How Assisted Suicide Becomes a License To Kill" - Krista Kafer | The Federalist | Feb.16,2016;http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/how-assisted-suicide-becomes-a-license-to-kill/

"Death, Dying, and Assisted Suicide, Part 1" - Dr. Scott Rae lecture | Ethics at the Edge of Life | Youtube video; http://open.biola.edu/resources/death-dying-and-assisted-suicide-part-1?collection=ethics-at-the-edge-of-life

Death, Dying, and Assisted Suicide, Part 2" - Dr. Scott Rae lecture | Ethics at the Edge of Life | Youtube video; http://open.biola.edu/resources/death-dying-and-assisted-suicide-part-2?collection=ethics-at-the-edge-of-life

"How we used to die; how we die now" - Louis Profeta, M.D. | Linkedin.com | Jan.16,2016; https://exopermaculture.com/2016/01/19/how-we-used-to-die-how-we-die-now/

"Colorado Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide, Elderly People Targeted as 'Sitting Ducks'" - Steven Ertelt | lifenews.com | Feb.5, 2016;
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/05/colorado-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-assisted-suicide-elderly-people-targeted-as-sitting-ducks/

LINKS ON PALLIATIVE CARE/ HOSPICE
Christian Medical Fellowship UK website - http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content/?context=article&id=726

"Palliative Care: The Biblical Roots " - Dan O'Brien, Ph.D. | Catholic Health Association | January-February 2014; https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-progress/article/january-february-2014/palliative-care-the-biblical-roots

"End of Life care - Christian Medical and Dental Association" - http://cmda.org/issues/detail/end-of-life-care 

# 1508 (2/23) "No, Women Should Not Be Included in the Draft"

"NO, WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT" - Jude Eden / Feb.19, 2016/
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/19/no-women-should-not-be-included-in-the-draft/ [NOTE: Yesterday's post, #1507, also dealt with this subject, but from a different perspective. AS I SEE IT: I remember tuning into the GOP debates several weeks ago and being stunned to hear Rubio and Bush casually say they saw nothing wrong with changing the policy. Even the questioner seemed surprised. - Stan]

Advocates for it have made the demonstrably false claim that women are physically capable of anything military men are while decades of military and sports medicine studies prove the opposite. (Photo: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Caleb McDonald/Released)

The question of drafting America’s young daughters is finally making the average voter consider the real implications of fully integrating the combat arms. The large majority of the population may have little or no connection to the military and therefore no concept of what’s at stake, until now. They’ve simply supported the idea because they support women generally, and think it’ll be their choice.

Drafting women is a bad idea because putting women into combat units is a bad idea on a myriad of fronts from degraded combat readiness to skyrocketing injuries, risk, expense, and danger to the long-term medical bill and increased casualties. We always need men to fight whereas drafting women is totally unnecessary.

Justifying a policy with such wide-ranging negative impacts based on the performance of a couple of women like the ones who graduated Ranger School is ludicrous. Having equal natural rights under the law does not mean men and women are the same. Combat is not an equal opportunity for women because they don’t have an equal opportunity to survive.

The combat integration policy has been sold to us on smoke. Advocates for it have made the demonstrably false claim that women are physically capable of anything military men are while decades of military and sports medicine studies prove the opposite. They’ve ignored the heavy negative effects that sexual dynamics already have on coed units, especially those that deploy. They’ve told us women becoming men’s physical equals is just a matter of leadership and training when women tested continually demonstrate it’s nature, not nurture, dictating the reality here.

These same proponents have maligned the Marine Corps’ impeccable 9-month Gender Integration Task Force study as “flawed”—except for the parts they like, of course. They love the part about co-ed teams being better at decision-making but omitted that the women were rested at the time, and these were a mere two of the 134 combat tasks. That all-male teams outperformed them on 69 percent of tasks and they retained more than twice men’s injuries must be hushed up and suppressed as they obliterate the argument that women strengthen combat readiness.

With a dictate from Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to increase female representation in the ranks to 25 percent, top-performing military women can be plucked from their units to “show success” in a combat unit. If the next president agrees with this scheme, who’s to say he or she won’t use the draft to get the desired “diversity metrics”? The Obama administration has done all sorts of unprecedented things. Women, especially athletic ones, are not going to have the choice to ride a desk to “free a man to fight” like in WWII. They will be under orders just like men, and they will go where the military needs them even if that “need” is to achieve “diversity metrics.”

The prospect of drafting women brings the issue home to average Americans who before had no skin in the game. Realizing now that this isn’t just about “a few women who want to,” they are starting to internalize the meaning of “tip of the spear,” and they don’t want their daughters there, fighting the rape- and beheading-happy ISIS. Technology has not lessened the face-to-face bludgeoning that our infantrymen are doing when the gun jams or ammo runs out as they’re fighting house to house and cave to cave on foot.

But is it too little, too late? The policy is in place, but policies change. Although Israel hasn’t put women in direct combat since 1948, they experimented with women in tank crews and the armored corps and reversed the policy. Britain, too, has gone back and forth depending on who’s in office. Although neither is comparable to the U.S. military’s size and scope, both found the same problems: much higher injuries and lower performance among women that skyrocketed costs and degraded readiness.

Congress can defund or postpone the effort in the next National Defense Authorization Act, or postpone implementation until they can review the studies and ramifications. It may take the next president to reinstate women’s combat exemption, but it can be done.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Jude Eden served in the Marines from 2004-2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKE ACTION - http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL16B05
Share this Alert:TwitterFacebookEmail

Sign the petition to the U.S. presidential candidates urging them to reject forcing our daughters to register for the draft.

#1507 (2/22) "Women and the Draft -THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UGLY IDEOLOGY"

"Women and the Draft -THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UGLY IDEOLOGY"  - By: Eric Metaxas|Breakpoint.org: Feb.17,2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28882

If there really are no differences between men and women, then sure, subject women to the military draft.

Earlier this month, a group of Marine Corps and Army generals dropped a bombshell on an unsuspecting Senate committee. In doing so, they opened a can of worms that our society desperately wants to keep closed: the one containing the real-world consequences of denying the innate differences between men and women.

General Robert Neller, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in response to a question from Missouri Senator Clair McCaskill told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft.” Neller’s position was seconded by General Mark Milley, the Army Chief of Staff. While their responses delighted McCaskill, it put the current secretaries of the Navy and Army in an awkward position. While the Obama administration has pushed for the full integration of women into combat roles, it has not come out in favor of requiring women to register for the draft when they turn eighteen.

The problem is that in opening up combat roles for women, the Obama administration has removed the only legal justification for treating men and women differently when it comes to the draft. In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld this differential treatment on the grounds that “the purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.” Since women were excluded from combat, they could be excluded from registration. Doing away with the exclusion from combat logically leads to taking away any exclusion from the draft.

Andrew Walker of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is absolutely correct when he wrote that the proposal to make women register for the draft isn’t just a military proposal; “it’s about an entire worldview built on the bankrupt ideology of egalitarianism.” 

This ideology denies that there are any meaningful differences between men and women, and that all legal and cultural distinctions are impermissible discrimination against women, even when women are the beneficiaries of these distinctions.

This ideology has led to what Walker has called our culture’s “weakened understanding of masculinity that makes male obligation optional if women are willing to do the duty of men.” This weakened understanding is reflected in public opinion polls showing that strong majorities favor allowing women in combat units.

It’s against this cultural setting, and the “tectonic shift” it represents, that we must see this proposal. A society that is increasingly reluctant to make men fulfill their obligations as husbands and fathers is, not surprisingly, increasingly reluctant to make them fulfill their obligation to protect those in need of protection.

Let me be clear: I’m not against requiring young people to perform public service, whether in the military or in some other capacity. And I wouldn’t dare imply that women aren’t as tough or as capable as men. As a happily married man and the father of a talented daughter, I can tell you that if anything, the opposite is true.

But subjecting women to the military draft ignores the way God created us, male and female. As Walker says, “God didn’t make us automatons. He didn’t make us asexual monads. He made us gendered, embodied, and different. The differences extend to all levels of our being—our emotional, physical, and psychological selves. The Christian tradition finds these differences beautiful; and we embrace them with glad acceptance.”

And because we Christians embrace these beautiful differences, we should vigorously oppose drafting women into the military. It’s a bad idea—one that would sacrifice our daughters on the altar of an ugly ideology. 

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - The Christian worldview doesn't overlook or ignore the differences between men and women, but celebrates those differences, as Eric has pointed out. Equality doesn't mean common sense should be silenced in favor of political correctness.
RESOURCES
"Experimental barbarism: Why drafting women is wrong" - 
Andrew Walker | erlc.com | February 8, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28882
"Threats Of Drafting Women Reveal The Lies Of Equality" - D.C. McAllister | The Federalist | February 8, 2016;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, Women Should Not Be Included in the Draft" - Jude Eden/Feb.19, 2016/

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/19/no-women-should-not-be-included-in-the-draft/

#1506 (2/21) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Evangelicals Are Not the Boogeyman"

"EVANGELICALS ARE NOT THE BOOGEYMAN" - David Limbaugh | Feb 16, 2016;
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2016/02/16/evangelicals-are-not-the-boogeyman-n2119911/page/full

I realize that as an evangelical Christian I have a dog in this fight, but I want to say a few words about evangelicals and the unfortunate effort afoot to make them the political boogeyman.

There are so many misconceptions about "evangelicals" -- from the definition of the word to the intentions of the people themselves -- but the most damaging myth is that we evangelicals seek a theocracy for the United States of America, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'll get back to that, but first a little background.

Recently I've had several people ask me what the deal is with Ted Cruz and "the evangelicals." The people inquiring are Christians, some even evangelicals. They ask, "What exactly is an evangelical, anyway?" In our culture, the term is used rather loosely -- and, more often than I'd like, pejoratively.

I'm seeing columns, blog posts and tweets galore suggesting in hushed terms that Ted Cruz adheres to some fringe philosophy that Christians must take over the world. It's not enough to accuse them of advocating a theocracy limited merely to the United States. No, world domination is their aim. This fear-mongering propaganda needs to be addressed and discredited. One tweet to me reads, "TedCruz is a theocrat. He is unbiblical & most Christians theologians/scholars believe he is a heretic. Cruz thinks he's Christ." Another asks, "Does Cruz want to be President or the 'Christian' Imam for the USA?" To laugh or cry?

So, let's examine the meaning of "evangelical." One respected dictionary defines it: "Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the Bible as the sole source of religious authority, in salvation only through conversion and spiritual regeneration, and in the necessity of public witness to faith." Many use the term loosely, as a synonym for protestant. More precisely, and in line with the dictionary definition, I'd say evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. They are Bible-believing individuals who believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. They believe that Christians are spiritually "born again," but only because the Bible says so, and not because they are snake-handling fanatics, as is sometimes assumed.

Part of the angst over evangelicals, I think, is based on the rise of the Moral Majority in the '80s, a coalition of mostly evangelicals who became political activists, not just on social issues but for all conservative causes. It wasn't only the secular left that reacted adversely to what came to be known as the "religious right" but also some socially liberal and even establishment Republicans, who enjoyed the religious right's electoral power but feared they would alienate moderates and independents. When you consider that evangelicals take fire from both sides of the political spectrum it's not difficult to understand how they've been so easily demonized and why misconceptions about their beliefs and intentions abound.

Contrary to popular belief, this nation was largely established by evangelical Christians, united in the unshakable belief that our liberties are God-given, and that the nation's founding documents are dedicated to preserving those liberties through a sophisticated scheme that limits governmental power to that end. Indeed, Christians whose ancestors came to America for the very purpose of escaping religious persecution and seeking religious liberty founded the United States. And they enshrined that liberty in the First Amendment to the Constitution, in two separate clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

But historians have revised our history, and the conventional wisdom is that our liberties are owing to secular enlightenment influences. Christianity, they say, is intolerant, rigid and incompatible with freedom. To the contrary, Christianity undergirds, rather than undermines, our liberties. Christian precepts formed the intellectual underpinnings of American constitutional government. Even if French Enlightenment thinking had its run for a time, America experienced its "Great Awakening" around 1734, which was a nationwide Christian revival that re-energized America's spiritual flames and gave it a sense of unity. Its unique cultural identity was centered on Christian principles.

Most of America's Founding Fathers were strong practicing Christians, who believed that man was created in God's image and likeness, which means that man has intrinsic worth and dignity. It is that firm conviction that leads to the notion that man is endowed with inalienable rights -- that he has God-given liberties. The Biblical affirmation of man's inherent worth, then, is indispensable to the unique political liberty Americans have historically enjoyed.

Don't believe fear-mongers who preach that evangelicals and other Christians seek to suppress liberties. You can be sure that precisely because of their Christian and biblical worldview, they are theocracy's worst enemy and liberty's best friend -- the people most committed to preserving our freedoms by honoring the Constitution, whose integrity must be protected to keep government power in check.

Don't misunderstand. Christians have a right, and, I would argue, a duty, to be engaged in the culture and in politics. They will advocate for issues in which they believe, like any other group, but they do not seek to suppress the freedoms, religious or otherwise, of anyone else. The same cannot be said, sadly, for some other groups.

God bless America.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert on law and politics. He recently authored the New York Times best-selling book: "Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel."

#1505 (2/20) PRO-LIFE SAT: “'Hands Up Don’t Abort' Posters Highlighting Epidemic of Abortions on Black Babies Cause Controversy"

“'HANDS UP DON'T ABORT' POSTERS HIGHLIGHTING EPIDEMIC OF ABORTIONS ON BLACK BABIES CAUSE CONTROVERSY" - Micaiah Bilger/Feb.4,2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/04/hands-up-dont-abort-posters-highlighting-epidemic-of-abortions-on-black-babies-cause-controversy/ [AS I SEE IT: It's exciting to think of what great  impact there could be if AA students at other  campuses  did the same as these students. - Stan]
 
In recognition of Black History Month, a group of pro-life students at Purdue University hung posters across campus to raise awareness about how black babies are targeted for abortions.

The posters read “Hands up, Don’t Abort” and “Black Children are an Endangered Race” and included the website TooManyAborted.com and the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, according to the Indy Star. On Monday, the Indiana college students also wrote messages such as “Womb = most dangerous place 4 black kids” in chalk on the sidewalks, the report states.

“[The] goal of doing this is really to bring to light … how specifically the African American community, minorities in general, are being targeted by Planned Parenthood and being exploited in the name of empowering women,” Purdue Students for Life President Kevin Lasher said.

The students said they were inspired to create the posters by pro-life African American Ryan Bomberger, founder of the Radiance Foundation. Bomberger’s website, TooManyAborted.com, points out that abortion is the number-one killer of black lives in America. Government statistics back up Bomberger’s statement. In New York City alone, more black babies are aborted every year than are born alive, LifeNews reported. Numbers from a 2012 National Vital Statistics Report also reveal that African American women experience an average of 1.6 times more pregnancies than white women, but have five times more abortions in their lifetime.

The abortion industry also has historically targeting minority women and their unborn babies ever since it began in America. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, was a racist and eugenicist who targeted African American and poor families and advocated for “sterilization and segregation” and “a cleaner race.” Currently, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American and/or Hispanic/Latino communities, according to research by Protecting Black Life.

The Purdue pro-life students said they want to raise awareness about these startling facts and work to protect every human life, no matter their age or race. However, some students on campus accused the pro-life group of trying to “shame women” with its messaging. At least one student filed an official complaint with the university, according to Fox 59.

Afton Goins, an African-American senior, blamed the pro-life students for promoting what she called “racist misogyny.” She said the posters were racist and sexist because they target black women who may “need” abortions.“It’s very likely for a black woman who happens to get pregnant to be in a situation where she would want to have an abortion, being that she is in a bad financial situation or a victim of sexual assault or does not have the current resources to provide for a child,” Goins said. “It’s using the black lives matter movement almost as a weapon to shame women who do want abortions or the right to access contraceptive services,” she continued.

Lasher responded that they were trying to raise awareness of a very serious problem and offer a better solution than abortion.“We’re on their side,” Lasher said. “We are looking to protect the lives of unborn African-Americans and unborn women. I don’t think it’s being racist or sexist at all. It’s looking out for the most vulnerable among us.”

Purdue Students for Life also issued a public statement after the controversy arose: “In light of Black History Month, our goal is to raise awareness of the fact that abortion and the industry that surrounds it disproportionately affects and harms the black community. We want people to know that black lives matter, in the womb and out. We must fight factors like poverty, sexism, and racism, that drive women to abortion, and we at Purdue Students for Life work to love and support women of all races facing crisis pregnancies. This is not about shaming anyone. It’s about human equality and the fact that all human lives have dignity that cannot be taken away, be they black or white, male or female, born or preborn.”

At the national level, African American pro-lifers have been strong in their call to end the targeting of unborn black babies and their mothers by the abortion industry. Bomberger recently joined U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy from Wisconsin in calling out the Congressional Black Caucus for ignoring the shocking number of black babies who are aborted. And Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., wrote an open letter to pro-abortion President Barack Obama in January asking him to change his position and defend unborn babies from the violence of abortion.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1504 (2/19) "Fight To Replace Scalia Proves the Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful"

ATTENTION: Please SCROLL DOWN this page to find the article titled on this post in LARGE BRIGHT BLUE CAPITAL LETTERS. Thank you.)

"Obama’s Disappointing Decision to Skip Scalia’s Funeral" - Katrina Trinko/
Feb.18,2016;http:/dailysignal.com/2016/02/18/obamas-disappointing-decision-to-skip-scalias-funeral/

PRAYER MATTERS:"To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." - Karl Barth; "Prayer is inviting God into a seemingly impossible situation and trusting Him to accomplish His perfect and loving will." - Stan

PERSONAL PRAIESE/PRAYER REQUESTS – 2/13 – 1)  PTL! My cat PURRTY - she is healing well and has finally completed her treatments; also,someone anonymously gave enough to pay all her vet bills!, 2) Still hoping to determine the cause of a water overflow problem (?) on my property, and 3) for help in figuring out why a section of my blog site suddenly disappeared the other day!

PRAY FOR AMERICA: THANK GOD for His many blessings on America throughout it's history. May we then ask that AMERICA once again be a blessing TO GOD, by once again submitting to HIS will in our affairs - both personal and national - that He may truly "heal our land." (2 Chron. 7:14) Short of that, we should not be saying "God Bless America"but instead "God be merciful towards America!" - Rev. Franklin Graham once delivered this insight to his Facebook friends: "I do know that the president defends Islam and chastises Christians, rebukes our allies and befriends our enemies, and fully supports gay marriages and abortion but denies the religious freedoms of those who don't agree. Our nation is ridiculed abroad and morally crumbling within. We are in trouble. We have turned our back on God.")

PRAY FOR OUR NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: We need to be praying that whoever fills Justice Scalia's seat on the Court will also exercise judicial wisdom and restraint. Pray that the next justice will consistently uphold the Constitution and not seek to make new law. For our sake and that of generations to come.

PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS:  Let's be praying that they might be Spirit-filled, leading us with Godly wisdom and integrity; that the Congress and the the President will find only pass legislation and enact policies that will benefit America today and future generations and NOT do any lasting harm.

Pray DAILY:1) For the NATIONAL ELECTIONS IN NOVEMBER. Pray that Americans will elect leaders at the state (Governors, state legislators) and national(Congress and President)levels who have Spirit-filled wisdom, integrity, and a Biblical world-view, who will know and do what is best for us today as well as for future generations. 2) For the the SUPREME COURT-Pray that the justices (including the one who will succeed Justice Scalia) will demonstrate more judicial RESTRAINT rather than judicial activism as it has the past few years, esp. on issues having negative impact for generations yet born. Pray in particular that religious liberty will be defended rather than eroded by any decision handed down."5 Cases To Watch At the S.C. In 2016" - IFA, On Watch in Washington, 2/3/2016;http://www.getamericapraying.com/blog/on-watch-in-washington-february-3-2016/#CASES

World-Wide Prayer Requests:
UPDATE ON PASTOR SAHEED: "Prayer Need Is Great as Abedini's Consider Their Future" - CBN News,01-28-2016;http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/January/Prayer-Need-is-Great-as-Abedinis-Consider-Their-Future;"Free at Last, Free at Last!" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Jan.26,2016; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20160126/free-last
UPDATE/1-15: "Asia Bibi Forgives Persecutors from Pakistani Prison" - CBN News; 1-15-2016;http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/January/Asia-Bibi-Forgives-Persecutors-from-Pakistani-Prison

7/24 - ASIA BIBI CONVICTION OVERTURNED! PRAY THAT SHE (IN VERY POOR HEALTH) MIGHT BE RELEASED WHEN HER CASE IS REVIEWED SOON. - A Christian mom had been sentenced to death in Pakistan for her faith. Asia Bibi was falsely accused of “blasphemy” – speaking against the prophet Muhammad. Now this wife and mother of five will hang for her Christian faith.She would be the first woman executed under Pakistan’s Shariah blasphemy law.This is the ultimate human rights violation. We’re mobilizing our international affiliate – the European Centre for Law and Justice – and its partner in Pakistan to stop this atrocity. Go to http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/breaking-pakistans-supreme-court-accepts-petition-to-hear-asia-bibis-appeal;please add your signature to over 300,000 others AND continue to pray for Asia Bibi.

PRAY FOR THE CRISIS HAPPENING NOW IN IRAQ & Syria (see post #907) Pray that coalition forces will be able to destroy the leadership and infrastructure of ISIS. (see post #964)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FIGHT TO REPLACE SCALIA PROVES THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL" - Kim Holmes/February 16, 2016/
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/16/fight-to-replace-scalia-proves-supreme-court-has-become-too-powerful/ [AS I SEE IT: We need to be praying that whoever fills Justice Scalia's seat on the Court will also exercise judicial wisdom and restraint. Pray that the next justice will consistently uphold the Constitution and not seek to make new law. For our sake and that of generations to come. - Stan]

The bench of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is seen draped with black wool crepe in memoriam. (Photo: Carloss Barria / Reuters/Newscom)

The stakes are high—very high. Finding a replacement for deceased Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia will be a battle royale. But why should one government official’s position be so existentially important? Yes, control of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, but that raises the question as to why the Court itself is so powerful. Could it be that the answer to that question tells us something about our increasing inability to govern ourselves as a free people?

 Let’s face it. Ever since at least the 1960s (and frankly even before) we have increasingly allowed the Supreme Court to decide controversial issues we have been unwilling to solve legislatively.
From civil rights to abortion to the issue of gay marriage, the high court has ruled on key issues well outside the legislative process. New constitutional rights were created out of whole cloth. If abortion couldn’t be legalized at the ballot box, or if gay marriage could not be made lawful by Congress or the states, a majority of the Supreme Court—a mere five people—would step in and do it for us. Using the power of judicial review, a new policy would be imposed simply by redefining it as a constitutional right.

The practice of judicial fiat is so commonplace we seldom realize how radical it is. We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves. We have allowed the courts in general but the Supreme Court in particular to become too powerful.

No single government official outside the president should be so important that his or her replacement could shift the course and destiny of the nation. And yet that is precisely the case with finding a replacement for Scalia. No matter which way it goes, the next Supreme Court justice will decide the balance of power of an institution that has arguably become more powerful than the Congress and as powerful (at least) as the presidency.

This was not what the Founders intended. Sure, we live in the modern age where a lot of water has flowed under the bridge of judicial review, but that’s precisely the problem. We have allowed those waters over time to become a flood, swamping in some cases the high court’s main purposes of safeguarding our existing rights and preserving the rule of law.

The irony should not be lost on us that it has been primarily liberal activists who have tried to hijack the court to get by judicial fiat what they could not obtain legislatively. For all their professed love of “democracy”—rule by the people—they have resorted to tactics that actually overturn laws passed legitimately by democratic legislatures.

The very insularity that the Founders had intended to protect the high court from the political passions of the times now serves those passions outright. It is not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to decide cases based on what they think—perhaps “divine” is a better word—the people or legislators really want. Perhaps based on opinion polls, for example, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy may have thought he was merely delivering what the people wanted when he decided in favor of gay marriage. But in doing so, he was overturning actual democratic votes that over the past ten years showed a 60.93-percent to 39.07-percent majority against gay marriage when the issue had been placed on the ballot. Should not actual votes count more than opinion polls?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind”: "Ultimately judicial activism is harmful not only to constitutional government but to democratic self-governance. When judges try to ram through their policy preferences by contorting texts, abusing precedents, and making up new constitutional rights, they undermine the credibility of both the Constitution and democracy."

That is why, now more than ever, the next Supreme Court justice must be someone who respects not only the original intent of the Constitution—what Scalia called “originalism”—but the need to restrict the policy activist role played by the court. Nothing less is at stake than our ability to govern ourselves as a free people.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Kim R. Holmes, a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, oversaw the think tank’s defense and foreign policy team for more than two decades. He's the author of the upcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind." Read his research.Pre-Order Kim Holmes’s New Book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left” 

"How Scalia’s Death Will Impact Cases on Immigration, Abortion, Religious Liberty" - 
Josh Siegel/February 16, 2016;http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/16/how-scalias-death-will-impact-cases-on-immigration-abortion-religious-liberty/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Qualms before the Storm" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update,Feb.18,2016;http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16B11&f=WU16B04

#1503 (2/18) Natioinal Marriage Week: "The Economic Value of Marriage"

"THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF MARRIAGE" - Elisabeth Zenger and Rachel Sheffield/ Feb.13, 2016/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/13/the-economic-value-of-marriage/[AS I SEE IT: While this article focuses on the benefits of an intact family to our nation's economic strength, the social implications on intact two-parent families cannot be over-stated. - Stan]

Strong marriages are in everyone’s best interest. (Photo: istockphoto)

In honor of [THIS being] National Marriage Week, consider this question: Does marriage impact the economic well-being of societies?

One of the most important answers to the solution of poverty lies not in government programs, but in the institution of marriage. For the past 50 years, our country has been losing the war against poverty. More than $22 trillion and 80 government means-tested welfare programs later, the results have fallen far short of success. In fact, in our eagerness to win this war, we have inadvertently become its perpetuators. One of the most important answers to the solution of poverty lies not in government programs, but in the institution of marriage.

Since the beginning of the government’s “War on Poverty,” marriage rates have declined sharply. The percentage of children born outside marriage has increased from seven percent in 1964 to over 40 percent in 2014. Tragically, children in single-parent homes are more than five times as likely to be poor compared to their peers in married-parent families.

The increase in non-marital births is especially prevalent among women with lower levels of education. Nearly two-thirds of births occurring among high school dropouts are to single women, in contrast with only 8 percent of non-marital births for women with a college degree. As a result of this shift in household structure, a two-caste society is being created, with educated, married-couple households at one end and uneducated, single-parent households at the other. This places a large portion of the nation’s children at a great disadvantage.

The national breakdown in marriage and the subsequent rise in unwed births are a root cause of the nation’s social and economic problems. The consequences of childhood poverty go beyond immediate physical hardships to impact the child’s future ability to thrive. Children born outside marriage are more likely to experience poorer educational outcomes: They are less likely to graduate from high school or attend and complete college compared to children from intact families. They are also more likely to experience psychological distress and are less likely to form stable and happy relationships.

In a recent study, “Strong Families, Prosperous States,” co-authors Brad Wilcox, Joseph Price, and Robert Lerman explore the link between family household structures and macroeconomic outcomes. They conclude that “to the extent that states across the nation are home to strong families—especially as measured by the share of families headed by married parents—they enjoy above-average levels of economic growth, economic mobility, and median family income, and below-average levels of child poverty.”

Wilcox, Price, and Lerman identify four explanations for the economic success of strong families at a state level: “[T]hey boost male residents’ labor force participation and engagement in the labor force; increase economies of scale, efficiencies, and savings for families; foster better educational and labor force outcomes for children; and reduce the prevalence of crime and violence.”

Tragically, far too many of the nation’s children do not enjoy the benefits of married parents. Leaders at every level should seek for ways to strengthen marriage. A good place to start would be to find ways to reduce marriage penalties in the government means-tested welfare system. Another step would be implementing public advertising campaigns on the importance of marriage and the risks of unwed childbearing, especially directing efforts toward those communities where marriage breakdown is most prevalent.

While marriage may not be the cure-all for society’s ills, it is vital to protecting against poverty, and there is much work to be done in this area. Strong marriages are in everyone’s best interest. Strengthening marriage to increase the opportunity for as many children as possible to be raised by their married mothers and fathers should be at the top of the nation’s antipoverty agenda.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Elisabeth Zenger is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation; Rachel Sheffield focuses on welfare, marriage and family, and education as policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

COMMENT (posted at website): James Ridgway·Panama City, Florida:
"The state of marriage as a social institution in this country is a symptom of how the overall society has changed over the past 70 years. The 'character' of the country is a reflection of the character of its members. Hot and cold Wars, depressions, recessions, unemployment, the hippy dippy 60s, racial unrest, cultural 'diversity', video voyeurism, and the modern liberalization of morals have almost destroyed national character and the institution. It was always weak amongst the lower socioeconomic classes where girls give it up for pleasure or security and guys are more than happy to partake, with NO commitment or regard for the future consequences. The issue is bigger than just marriage. Marriage is the canary in the coal mine. When it comes to marriage, economics should be a lesser justification."

#1502 (2/17) "Zika and Abortion, a Tale of Two Viruses..."

"ZIKA AND ABORTION, A TALE OF TWO VIRUSES - THE IMPERIALISM OF DEATH"- By: Eric Metaxas|Breakpoint.org:Feb.12,2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28862

Sensing an opportunity, the pro-abortion vultures are circling in Latin America.

On February 1, the World Health Organization declared a “global emergency” over the spread of the Zika virus. The WHO estimates there could be as many as 4 million cases of Zika in the Americas over the next twelve months. The Centers for Disease Control, while saying that Zika is unlikely to cause a widespread problem here in the U.S., is cautioning pregnant women to postpone travel to areas affected by the virus.

While Zika is rarely, if ever, life-threatening, concern about the illness could prove fatal for one vulnerable population: the unborn. The Zika virus is a member of the same family of viruses as the ones that cause dengue and yellow fevers. Unlike these cousins, however, Zika’s affects, with one notable exception, are usually mild: headaches, fever, joint pains, and some rashes. Most of these symptoms go away within a few days.

The exception, which was first identified in French Polynesia three years ago, is that pregnant women infected with the virus are at a much greater risk of giving birth to children with microcephaly, a “neurodevelopmental disorder” characterized by significantly smaller head size. An estimated 3,700 cases of microcephaly in Brazil are believed to have been linked to the Zika virus. The concern is so great that several Latin nations, including El Salvador, Ecuador, Jamaica, and Colombia, have recommended that women postpone pregnancies until the outbreak is brought under control.

Make no mistake: This is a serious health crisis. According to the Mayo Clinic, the complications from microcephaly can include, among others, developmental delays, mental retardation, and seizures. Noticeable by its absence in the list of complications is death. For that, you need the Western obsession with abortion rights.

No sooner had the tragic stories from Brazil hit Western media than abortion-rights advocates began using the tragedy to argue for the liberalizing of abortion laws in Latin America. For instance, a recent headline in USA Today read, “Zika highlights lack of access to contraception, abortion in Latin America.” The article told readers, “The Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Nicaragua ban all abortions,” and that “six others—Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Suriname and Venezuela—allow abortion only to save a woman’s life.”

Another story on NPR told listeners that “Zika might be a watershed moment in how reproductive rights are perceived in [El Salvador]—and the entire region.” It quoted a New York Times op-ed by Erika Guevara Rosas of Amnesty International, which said that “Women and girls cannot access an abortion even if continuing their pregnancy will kill them, or if their fetuses are not viable.”

Of course in the case of this particular virus, the pregnancy will not “kill” the mothers, and the fetus is still viable. What’s happening here is that the tragedy of the Zika virus is being used as a pretext to eliminate legal protections for all unborn children in Latin America, whether or not their mothers even come into contact with the virus.

The good news is that children with microcephaly can and do live happy and what the world would call productive lives. According to the Mayo Clinic, “early intervention with supportive [speech and occupational] therapies may help enhance” the development of children with microcephaly and improve their quality of life. Folks, these children deserve our support, not a death sentence.

Abortion advocates never let a good crisis go to waste. It’s our job to make sure they don’t succeed in spreading their pro-death ideology across the hemisphere.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - Arm yourself with the facts about the Zika virus and its possible effects. Then use that knowledge to help protect the most vulnerable members of our world--whether in Latin America or the U.S.A. Be a part of advancing the culture of life by proactively advocating for the unborn.
“ 'Nothing Justifies Abortion', Catholic Church Says Killing Babies Not Acceptable During Zika Crisis" - Micaiah Bilger | Lifenews.com | Feb. 5, 2016;
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/05/nothing-justifies-abortion-catholic-church-says-killing-babies-not-acceptable-during-zika-crisis/
"Zika virus: its effects, how it is spread, and the possible threat to women" - Jessica Glenza | The Guardian | Jan. 21, 2016;http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/21/zika-virus-cdc-symptoms-mosquitos-united-states-pregnant-women-microcephaly

#1501 (2/16) "What Scalia Taught Us"

"WHAT SCALIA TAUGHT US" - Paul J. Larkin Jr. / Feb. 13, 2016 /
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/13/what-scalia-taught-us/[AS I SEE IT: For almost 30 years, this brilliant man was a conservative giant, just as Ronald Reagan was during his years as President. This is a loss for America that I cannot see ever being replaced. So devastating and sad.- Stan]

For conservatives, it is the loss of a standard-bearer and icon. For liberals, it is the loss of an opponent who always fought hard but fair. (Photo: Jeff Malet for The Daily Signal)

Antonin Gregory Scalia has died. For some, it is the painful loss of a husband or father. For those who knew him, it is the loss of a good friend. For law students, it is the loss of a justice who wrote opinions with rigorous analysis, clarity of expression, and at times an acerbic wit.

For conservatives, it is the loss of a standard-bearer and icon. For liberals, it is the loss of an opponent who always fought hard but fair. For those who never had the opportunity to know him, it is the loss of one of our greatest legal minds, of a judge and justice who had made, and will continue to make, legal history. And to those who were privileged to know him, it is the loss of a wonderful human being.

More than 100 men and women have been justices of the Supreme Court. All decided the outcome of individual cases and made small changes in the law. Few changed its course. Some—such as Joseph Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, William Brennan, and William Rehnquist—will be remembered for moving the Supreme Court in one direction or another.

They launched the court into its existence as an institution. They addressed some of the most important issues that can arise under our Constitution—issues involving the separation of powers, freedom of speech and religion, the integrity of the criminal justice process, and the relationship between government and the nation. They established the Supreme Court—rightly or wrongly—as one of the most powerful institutions in our nation. Their tenure still has a powerful effect today.

But even fewer justices changed the course of the law. John Marshall was one. Antonin Scalia was another.

Scalia taught us that the law matters, that the law is the written word, and that the written word takes its meaning from how history understands it, not what we wish it might mean. 

For him, the law was a tablet whose meaning could be discerned by focusing on the meaning of the words it contained, rather than by asking ourselves what we want it to mean. The latter, he said, was the stuff of politics, not law, and he drew a line in the sand between the two. He maintained that view of a judge’s role even when it was unfashionable to hold that belief because it may lead to outcomes we may not like. But he believed that it was his duty to uphold the rule of law, because only that rule separated us from the many nations on the Earth governed by the rule of might.

Robert F. Kennedy once said that the privilege of public service carried with it the opportunity to bend history. Not only did Antonin Scalia bend it; he turned it in a different direction. We will be forever grateful to him for that. Requiescat in pace. [Rest in Peace]

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Paul J. Larkin Jr. directs The Heritage Foundation’s project to counter abuse of the criminal law, particularly at the federal level, as senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies, Creating Election Year Vacancy on Court" - Philip Wegmann/ Feb.13,2016;http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-creating-election-year-vacancy-on-court/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chuck Colson's Tribute to Justice Scalia - A FOOL FOR CHRIST" - By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.org: February 16, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28876
"What the Church Can Learn From Justice Scalia’s Life" - Russell Moore|February 13, 2016|https://www.russellmoore.com/2016/02/13/what-the-church-can-learn-from-justice-scalias-life/   
"9 Zingers From the Sharp Mind of Justice Antonin Scalia" - Ken McIntyre / Feb. 13, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/13/9-zingers-from-the-sharp-mind-of-justice-antonin-scalia/

"A law can be both economic folly and constitutional," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, pictured here at a Heritage Foundation event in October 2015, once said. (Photo: Jeff Malet for The Daily Signal)

Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday during his 29th year on the Supreme Court, was known for a sharp wit as well as a brilliant legal mind, and he expressed both with his tongue as well as his pen.

Here is just a sample:
1. “What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean?” (Remarks at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,  Washington, D.C., 2005.)
2. “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” (Majority opinion, Arizona v. Hicks, 1987.)
3. “God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools … and he has not been disappointed. … If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.” (Speech at Living the Catholic Faith conference, 2012.)
4. “If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.” (Speech, Wilson Center,  2005.)
5. “The purpose of the Federalist Society was to bring together young people who had this skepticism about what they were being taught and to let them know that there were others who shared this skepticism.” (Remarks, Federalist Society’s 20th anniversary gala, 2002.)
6. “A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.” (Concurring opinion, CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp of America, 1987.)
7. “If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.” (Speech, Wilson Center, 2005.)
8. “It is one of the unhappy incidents of the federal system that a self-righteous Supreme Court, acting on its members’ personal view of what would make a ‘more perfect Union’ (a criterion only slightly more restrictive than a ‘more perfect world’) can impose its own favored social and economic dispositions nationwide.” (Dissent, United States v. Virginia, 1996.)
9. “Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.” (Commencement address, College of William and Mary, 1996.)

[colored emphasis mine]

Ken McIntyre, a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation's Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies. (Lyndsey Fifield contributed to this report. It has been modified to substitute one quotation and specify the context for each.)