# 1575 (4/30) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Abortion Business Closed in Virginia After Officials Found Filthy, Unsterilized Equipment"

"ABORTION BUSINESS CLOSED IN VIRGINIA AFTER OFFICIALS FOUND FILTHY, UNSTERILIZED EQUIPMENT" - Micaiah Bilger, Apr 27, 2016 |  http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/27/abortion-business-closed-in-virginia-after-officials-found-filthy-unsterilized-equipment/ [AS I SEE IT: The statement below that "there was 'more oversight of women’s hair salons and nail salons' than over abortion facilities in Pennsylvania" is something that most people do not realize about abortion facilities. They may not all be as bad as those recently discovered such as this one in Virginia, but we have to wonder how many are. Abortions are obviously dangerous for the unborn but many don't know that women may risk their own safety when pursuing this "simple procedure." Also, what does it say of abortion activists that they resist making these facilities safe for women? - Stan]

The name Steven Chase Brigham is notorious on both sides of the abortion movement. The late-term abortionist lost his license to practice in five states, faced criminal charges for killing late-term babies, employed a sex offender and more. Despite his disgraceful reputation, Brigham still runs more than a dozen abortion facilities in three East Coast states: Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia, according to his business website.

This month, one of his Virginia abortion clinics was shut down, at least temporarily. The Washington Post reports state investigators found filthy, dangerous conditions that compromised patient safety inside Brigham’s Fairfax abortion clinic during a two-day inspection. After finding 26 deficiencies, the state Department of Health immediately suspended the Virginia Health Group’s operating license, the report states. The abortion clinic has stopped doing abortions, but it is still seeing patients for follow-up visits; and it is appealing the decision, according to the report.

The report has more details about what the state found:
     Inspectors observed dirty equipment, expired medication in unlocked cabinets, lax storage of medical records and a failure of staff to sterilize and maintain medical equipment and follow hand-washing protocols, according to a 52-page report. In one case, a patient had to be rushed to a local emergency room for prolonged bleeding after sutures were not available at the clinic, the report says. In another, a nurse used a plunger to unstop a toilet and then held a patient’s hand during a surgical procedure without changing scrubs, according to the report.

The Virginia abortion center failed state inspections in the past, too. In 2014, state inspectors discovered 33 pages worth of violations at the facility, many of which were repeat offenses, LifeNews reported. These included dirty and broken equipment, improper sterilization and cleaning, and failure to provide patients with contact information where complaints may be filed, according to the state report.

Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, said the state should have shut down Brigham’s abortion business long ago. “It is absolutely appalling that it took this long for the state to shut him down, but it’s more appalling that he may still be allowed to operate,” Cobb said in a statement. “Virginians need to understand the very health and safety standards that are intended to protect women from the likes of Steven Brigham are the same standards [Gov.] Terry McAuliffe is trying to water down and eliminate.”

Even some abortion supporters are calling for Brigham’s shoddy practice to be shut down. Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, told the newspaper that the state should take action against Brigham, who has shown a “clear pattern of repeated and serious misconduct that poses a significant threat to patient safety.”

However, abortion activists also claimed Brigham is an outlier, and the abortion industry does not need to be regulated. It’s the same line they used when abortionist Kermit Gosnell was discovered in Philadelphia. He later was convicted of murdering three newborn babies and hundreds of other charges.

Authorities in the Gosnell case discovered that he got away with his murderous trade for so long because of the lack of state regulations. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said there was “more oversight of women’s hair salons and nail salons” than over abortion facilities in Pennsylvania.

The gruesome Philadelphia case led a number of states, including Virginia, to enact new regulations to ensure abortion facilities were meeting basic health and safety standards. But in 2014, Virginia granted Brigham’s shoddy Virginia facilities a variance, allowing it to avoid compliance with the regulations.Then, last summer, pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe succeeded in convincing the state Board of Health to get rid of some of the new health and safety regulations.

In a potential landmark abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Texas abortion activists challenged similar regulations at the U.S. Supreme Court in March. The case involves a Texas law that protects women’s health and welfare by requiring abortion clinics to meet the kinds of medical and safety standards that legitimate medical centers meet. Texas lawmakers enacted the regulations to protect women and babies from abortionists like Gosnell and Brigham.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

# 1574 (4/29) "Tactics"

"TACTICS" - Mike Adams Mike Adams |Posted: Apr 29, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2016/04/29/tactics-n2154983

It is beyond dispute that the left is winning the current culture war and doing so by a landslide. In response to this reality I’ve heard many conservatives say we just need to start making better arguments for our positions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not losing because our arguments are inferior. We are losing because of tactics rather than substance. Put simply, the left has learned how to do two things: 1) Control the language in the national debate 2) Get their ideas disseminated and accepted without any evidentiary basis.

There is one Christian apologist who understood this problem long before anyone else. His name is Greg Koukl and he is president of the California based apologetics group “Stand to Reason.” Through his cogent writings, Greg has taught me a valuable lesson that each and every culture warrior needs to know: When someone attacks your ideas or tries to push a false idea on you, start asking questions before you try to make your case.

This advice proved helpful to me when I was recently attacked by a friend who holds contrary political views. Knowing that I teach a course called “First Amendment and Crime,” he suddenly hit me with this accusatory question, which I found to be somewhat insulting: “How do you control your bias when you teach a class like that?” As someone who has long criticized professors who indoctrinate rather than teach I did not appreciate my friend’s suggestion that I was “one of them.” In fact, it irritated me. So I took a deep breath and asked the first question in a series of three questions Koukl recommends to help get back in the drivers’ seat whenever we are caught off guard in any argument:

1. What do you mean by that?

2. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

3. Have you ever considered the following?

Notice the brilliance of Koukl’s technique. Writing for an audience of people who subscribe to a Christian worldview, he’s telling them to hold off on presenting their affirmative case (in question #3) until they have done two things. First, make sure your opponent understands his terms (question #1). Next, find out whether his argument has any evidentiary basis (question #2).

In the case of my friend who accused me of engaging in biased indoctrination in the classroom, I simply asked, “What do you mean by bias?” Surprisingly, he was able to respond with an accurate definition of bias. To paraphrase him slightly, he defined bias as “only teaching or presenting material that conforms to your beliefs.” Since he made it through the first question I then asked, “How did you arrive at the conclusion that I am a biased teacher?” His response was fatal to his argument. To once again paraphrase him slightly, he said, “I just assumed you were biased because you’re so conservative.” This set up the kill shot, which was delivered by asking, “Have you ever considered that accusing a person of bias without any evidentiary basis is itself a form of bias?”

It should go without saying that he had no response other than turning red and swallowing nervously. He was obviously embarrassed when he lost control of the argument by having his own terminology used against him. There’s a lesson in that – particularly for those arguing unpopular positions in the debate over so-called gay rights.

Koukl’s three-question technique, which he calls the Colombo tactic, was something one of my former students needed the other day when a gay rights issue (concerning North Carolina’s HB2) came up in the workplace. While at work, she got an email that said the following (this is a paraphrased and condensed version):

Dear (company name withheld) employees:
     Recently, there has been much controversy over North Carolina’s HB2, which promotes bigotry and intolerance. We are writing today to reaffirm our commitment to inclusion and to applaud the efforts of companies such as PayPal that have decided to respond aggressively to these basic violations of human rights and human decency. Our company is steadfastly opposed to measures such as HB2 and we intend to respond appropriately in the near future.

My former student’s co-workers began responding to the email in a predictable fashion. They all supported their company’s stance against HB2. But my former student had a different view. So what could she do? And more generally what should people with her views do in response to a similar email? Of course, applying the Colombo tactic is the only reasonable response. And here is how a model response would look:

1. What do you mean by “bigotry and intolerance?” The first response should force the proponent to define the terms he uses in the email. Assuming he could do so the next question would be easy.

2. How did you arrive at the conclusion that HB2 promotes bigotry and intolerance? This question will reveal whether the opponent of HB2 actually read the bill before condemning it. This provides a perfect set up for the kill question.

3. Have you ever considered the possibility that PayPal’s decision to do business with five nations that execute people for the “crime” of homosexuality promotes bigotry and intolerance? And have you also considered the possibility that applauding PayPal for its refusal to do business with North Carolina, a state that does not criminalize homosexuality, undermines our professed commitment to diversity and inclusion?

Game over, ladies and gentlemen. There simply is no way for the anti-HB2 crusaders to recover from that one. Of course, there is the possibility that such an exchange could cause you to win the argument but lose your job. But that brings up another issue altogether. It will be the subject of a future column.

In the meantime, I recommend reading Tactics immediately. [http://www.amazon.com/Tactics-Game-Discussing-Christian-Convictions/dp/0310282926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461763328&sr=8-1&keywords=tactics]

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Boycott US States Are in Countries Where Being Gay is Illegal" - Mark Martin, 4-27-2016; http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/april/companies-in-countries-where-being-gay-is-illegal-but-boycott-u-s-states

# 1573 (4/28) "Strong Female Characters - A HOLLYWOOD TROPE THAT HURTS WOMEN"

"Strong Female Characters - A HOLLYWOOD TROPE THAT HURTS WOMEN" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: April 28, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29215

Coming to theaters yet again: One more action flick with warring women in the lead role. But most of these movies only obscure real feminine strength.

“Anything you can do I can do better!” sang the title character in the 1950 “Annie, Get Your Gun.” That could be the motto of most of the female leads in blockbuster movies today. Consider Rey, played by Daisy Ridley in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” She’s hailed as an empowering role model for girls, but critics have pointed out how closely she follows the infamous “Mary Sue” trope—an adolescent with no prior experience whose improbable powers and skills save the day. In the original trilogy, Luke Skywalker lost his hand the first time he confronted the bad guy. Rey, meanwhile, easily bests her story’s villain, despite never having picked up a lightsaber before.

Writing at “Mere Orthodoxy” [see link to article below], Alistair Roberts points to a pantheon of recent heroines from Merida, Katniss, and Black Widow, to Jyn Erso in the upcoming “Star Wars: Rogue I”—all of whom are more than equals to men in combat. These 98-pound kung fu masters routinely make guys look like clumsy idiots, all while showing off petite, department-store model figures.

This “strong female character” cliché, says Roberts, teaches audiences that in order to prove their equal dignity, ladies must be able to best men in hand-to-hand combat. But these portrayals, he argues, aren’t just “failures of imagination” that pit women against men in a “zero sum game.” They also fly in the face of biology.

There’s a reason traditional values taught us to despise men who hit women. Because on average, women simply aren’t capable of fighting back, much less kicking men around the way they do in these movies. Roberts points to studies published in journals of sports medicine and applied physiology showing that men have, on average, ninety percent greater upper body strength, sixty-five percent greater lower body strength, and are twenty-two percent faster. The average man, researchers concluded, is stronger than 99.9 percent of women.

Ignoring this results in more than just corny fights scenes. The belief that men and women aren’t meaningfully different has real-world consequences. We recently told you about transgender fighter Fallon Fox, who brutally injured Tamikka Brents in women’s mixed martial arts. Brents was being treated for facial fractures and a concussion. And the Marine Corps recently proposed a plan that would allow women to pass the physical fitness test without completing pullups. One anonymous officer admitted that pullups are important metrics of combat readiness, but said allowing women to skip this exercise would positively impact their military careers.

This mindset undoubtedly contributes to our willingness to place women in danger. And if men and women belong together in the boxing ring and the battlefield, hey, why not the bathroom, too?

Even worse, we’ve become blind to the very feminine strengths that the Bible praises. Think of Deborah and Jael in the book of Judges. Think of Sarah, commended twice in the New Testament for her faith, or the Hebrew midwives, whose courage and value for human life saved an entire generation. Think of Hannah, whose patient longing for a child ushered in the kingdom over which Jesus would reign. Think of the loyalty of Ruth, and of Mary, who at a tender age welcomed God’s promise to save the world.

And look at history, too. My colleague Eric Metaxas tells of seven women in his terrific book by that name. My daughter loved the chapters on Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc in particular. But as Eric wrote in the introduction to the book, “When I consider the seven women I chose, I see that most of them were great for reasons that derive precisely from their being women, not in spite of it." In other words, their accomplishments are not gender neutral but are rooted in their singularity as women. Amen! And their lives are so much richer than the stereotyped strong female characters in today’s movies. Even if they weren’t good with a lightsaber.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Hollywood's female superhero myth attempts to influence the way our culture looks at women, shaping them into a one-size-fits-all mold, ignoring the great and subtle differences between the sexes. But women's strength manifests in many different forms, and Christianity is rich with a variety of examples. Why not check those out?

"Why We Should Jettison the 'Strong Female Character' ” - Alastair Roberts | Mereorthodoxy.com | April 18, 2016; https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-we-should-jettison-the-strong-female-character/
"Female Marine Pullup Failure Doesn’t Mean Women Aren’t Strong" - Mollie Hemingway | The Federalist | January 3, 2014; http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/03/female-marine-pullup-failure-doesnt-prove-women-arent-strong/
7 Women: And the Secret of Their Greatness- Eric Metaxas | Thomas Nelson | September 2015

# 1572 (4/27) "The Peculiar Story of Adam LaRoche - WALKING AWAY FROM THE GAME AND $13M"

"The Peculiar Story of Adam LaRoche - WALKING AWAY FROM THE GAME AND $13M"-By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: April 22, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29191 [AS I SEE IT: When I first read this story, I was inspired by this man placing "his Christian faith and his family" above the salary he would have earned. But then learning that at 36 he was just 6 months away from retiring anyway, that few fathers get to take their sons to work EVERY DAY (as he had been doing for 5 years) and that he had been shown grace in being allowed to have that pleasure, that fulfilling his contract would have been like keeping his promise (which was also part of being Christian?), and considering that while he and his family may not have needed the $13 million he gave up, he could have finished out his career and dedicated that money to helping the non-profit cause that is so greatly on his heart (how many people every day "suck it up" for a time in order to do a job they dislike whereas he would be doing a job he has been gifted to do and to some degree continues to enjoy doing), I now have difficulty with his decision. WHAT DO YOU THINK? - Stan]

What would cause a superb Major League Baseball player to walk away from the game -- and a big pile of money? God only knows.

In March, Major League baseball player Adam LaRoche shocked the sports world. LaRoche, a 12-year veteran who averaged more than 20 home runs a year and won many awards for his defensive skills at first base, unexpectedly retired. By doing so, he walked away from $13 million—the amount left on the final year of a two-year contract with the Chicago White Sox.

Even more shocking than leaving $13 million on the table was the reason he did so: The White Sox had informed LaRoche that his 14-year-old son, Drake, could no longer accompany him in the club house every day.

If you can’t imagine walking away from that kind of money for that kind of reason, you’re not alone. But then again, a lot of what LaRoche does is peculiar, and I mean that in the best possible way.

It’s fair to say that most of those who commented on his decision, which in the age of social media means practically everyone with access to the Internet, were critical of LaRoche’s decision to put his ideas about being a good father ahead of his team and his teammates.

Not that it matters to LaRoche. He told ABC news that “I have zero regrets.” While he admitted to being angry with the White Sox at first, he added that their actions made his decision to retire easier. As he put it, “I don't want to be defined by this game. I know there's a lot more to life.”

Well, this understanding that there’s a lot more to life is why Tim Keown of ESPN wrote in his profile of LaRoche, “You need to forget everything you think you know about professional athletes. Adam LaRoche is different.”

Part of the difference, as LaRoche’s comments suggest, is that he’s not consumed by the sport, despite being the son of one major leaguer and the brother of another. He has other interests, chief among them his Christian faith and his family. It’s why Drake, who attends regular school in the off-season and is home-schooled in the spring quarter, accompanied his dad to the ballpark every day.

It’s why, when LaRoche played for the Washington Nationals and the Chicago White Sox, he and other teammates sponsored “Faith Days” in 2014 and 2015.And most of all, it’s why LaRoche and Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Blaine Boyer spent ten days last November working undercover in Southeast Asian brothels trying to rescue underage sex slaves.

Yes, you heard me right. LaRoche and Boyer, working with a group called Exodus Road and at great personal risk, used a hidden camera to identify trafficked girls—known only by a number pinned to their bikinis—and also their bosses. As Boyer told Keown, “Something huge happened there for us . . . Adam and I truly believe God brought us there and said, ‘This is what I have for you boys.’” On the flight home LaRoche turned to Boyer and said, “What are we doing? We’re going back to play a game for the next eight months?”

Upon his return from Asia, LaRoche was haunted by what he had seen and by the fact that it was going on while he lay safely in his bed. Keown writes of LaRoche’s “nearly cinematic level of nonconformity” to people’s expectations of what an athlete should be. But a better description would be “peculiar.” Peculiar in the biblical sense of being “a peculiar people.” The Greek word translated “peculiar” means “costly” and “treasured,” but because our treasure is found in different places than the rest of the world, Christian are to be “peculiar” in the more typical sense of being “different,” maybe even considered “weird.”

LaRoche’s confidence to be peculiar, even at the cost of $13 million, comes from the fact that there’s a lot more to life than the world would have us believe, but that God is waiting to show to us—maybe through a peculiar ball player.

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9)

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
Exclusive [video clip]: "Why Adam LaRoche Has 'Zero Regrets' Walking Away From $13M Chicago White Sox Salary" - Suzanne Yeo and Jim Vojtech | abcnews.go.com | April 19, 2016; http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/exclusive-adam-laroche-regrets-walking-13m-chicago-white/story?id=38497408
"Adam LaRoche goes deep on his decision to walk" - Tim Keown | espn.go.com | April 13, 2016;http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15159499/adam-laroche-goes-deep-decision-walk
Exodus Road website - https://theexodusroad.com/

#1571 (4/26) "Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty

"TOP 5 REASONS CONGRESS SHOULD REJECT OBAMA'S CLIMATE CHANGE TREATY" - Nicolas Loris / April 19, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/top-5-reasons-congress-should-reject-obamas-climate-change-treaty/

The Paris agreement, and U.S. participation in the entire framework convention on climate change is a raw deal for Americans. (Photo: Dennis Brack/UPI/Newscom)

Secretary of State John Kerry will join leaders from around the world to sign the Paris Protocol global warming agreement this Friday [4/22] at the United Nations headquarters. Here are the top five reasons Congress and the next administration should withdraw from the accord:

1) Higher energy bills, fewer jobs and a weaker economy.
     The economic impact of domestic regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe. To meet America’s commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the administration will need to drive the cost of conventional fuels higher so households and businesses use less.

Because energy is a necessary input for almost all goods consumers buy, households are hit by higher prices multiple times over. Global warming regulations will increase electricity expenditures for a family of four by at least 13 percent a year. Cumulatively, they will cost American families over $20,000 of lost income by 2035 and impose a $2.5 trillion hit on the economy.

2) No impact on climate.
     Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, regulations associated with the Paris accord will have no meaningful impact on the planet’s temperature. Even if the government closed the doors to every businesses and CO2-emitting activity in the U.S., there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures. 

Even Kerry admitted during the negotiations last December that: "If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions— remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions— it wouldn’t’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world."

Though the Paris Protocol is an international agreement, there is little reason to believe that the developing world (India, China, etc.) will prioritize reducing cargo dioxide emissions over using affordable energy that provides their citizens with a better standard of living. Yes, China and other developing countries have serious air and water quality problems from industrial byproducts. But do not associate those problems with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless and non-toxic. The focus of the Paris Protocol is to address catastrophic global warming. The developing world has more pressing tangible environmental challenges, which they’ll be able to address when they’re wealthier and have the necessary means to tackle them.

3) Massive taxpayer-funded wealth transfer for green initiatives.
     An important part of the Paris agreement for the developing world is money. More specifically, other peoples’ money. In Nov. 2014, President Barack Obama also pledged to commit $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, an international fund for green projects in the developing world. The administration and proponents of a Green Climate Fund have repeatedly called for spending $100 billion per year between the United States and other countries in public and private financing to combat climate change. In March, the Obama administration made a $500 million taxpayer-funded payment to the Green Climate Fund despite Congress never having authorized the funding.

The Green Climate Fund is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded wealth transfer from developed countries to developing ones. The fund will do little to promote economic growth in these countries but instead connect politically-connected companies with taxpayer dollars.

4) Avoids review and consent from elected officials.
     The Paris agreement is in form, in substance, and in the nature of its commitments a treaty and should be submitted to the Senate for review and consent. The executive branch has shown contempt for the U.S. treaty-making process and the role of Congress, particularly the Senate. As my colleague Steven Groves writes and explains in great detail, “The argument that the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution “targets and timetables” are not legally binding and therefore the Paris Agreement is not a “treaty” requiring the advice and consent of the Senate simply has no basis in law.”

5) A top-down, government controlled push for economic transformation.
    To achieve their global warming goals, international leaders want to control an economic transformation. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has said that: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

A top-down, concentrated effort to shift away from the use of coal, oil and natural gas will prevent millions from enjoying the basic energy needs Americans and the developed world takes for granted. In the industrialized world, the effects of moving away from conventional fuels have been devastating at times. Fuel poverty and pricier energy caused tens of thousands of deaths in Great Britain because families could not heat their homes. The world runs on traditional fuels because they are cost competitive and abundant. If and when any transformative shift away from these natural resources occurs, it will be driven by the market.

The Paris agreement, and U.S. participation in the entire framework convention on climate change is a raw deal for Americans. The next administration should not only withdraw from Paris but the entire United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

"Obama’s Violating the Constitution by Not Submitting Climate Treaty to Senate" - Sen. Mike Lee / Rep. Mike Kelly / April 22, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/obamas-violating-the-constitution-by-not-submitting-climate-treaty-to-senate/
"Obama’s Wrong: Climate Change Is Not Our Biggest Threat" - Sen. Jim Inhofe / April 22, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/obamas-wrong-climate-change-is-not-our-biggest-threat/

# 1570 (4/25) "Earth Day: Ditch the Tree Hugging for Free Markets"

"EARTH DAY: DITCH THE TREE HUGGING FOR FREE MARKETS" - Katie Tubb / April 22, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/earth-day-ditch-the-tree-hugging-for-free-markets/

Demonstrators march in San Diego Earth Day Fair. (Photo: Earl S. Cryer/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Earth Day [this past Friday, 4/22] isn’t a day for yoga pants, organic granola, and communal tree hugging. In fact, nothing says Earth Day quite like a new coal power plant. Before you write me off as a fossil fuel industry operative, let me explain this and other unconventional ways Americans are good stewards of the environment.

1) Profit-seeking, entrepreneurial companies. Environmental extremists have worked hard to paint economic enterprise as the greedy enemy of the environment. In reality, they often go hand in hand naturally. For example, Walmart knew it could save millions on transportation costs if its trucks improved gas mileage by just 1 mpg. Efficiency comes with upfront costs, but it proved to be a good investment for Walmart. Entrepreneurial companies naturally seek to get the biggest bang for the smallest buck, an incentive that leads to conservation of resources, efficiency, and ingenuity that improve the environment.

2) Smartphones and Dishwashers. When was the last time you referenced a paper copy of the yellow pages for a phone number? Some have mused about when the final print will be, considering that references have tumbled over the past decade. Computers and smartphones have unlocked entire libraries without a single piece of paper being used, not to mention the phone directories as well—no door stopper-of-a-book necessary. Dishwashers tell a similar story. According to ENERGYSTAR.gov, using a dishwasher saves 230 hours of work a year, consumes half as much energy, and saves almost 5,000 gallons of water compared to washing dishes by hand. Free markets drive efficiency and innovation (though trouble comes when government distorts those opportunities with mandates and subsidies).

3) Fences. Property rights create a powerful incentive for environmental stewardship. For example, the DuBose family in Garland, N.C. are ardent quail hunters who have invested in their property to restore native grassland habitat for the bird in partnership with Orvis and local seed farms.
It aims to become a desirable hunting retreat. And for those like some environmental activists who wish to keep land from any human interaction, owning property also gives them that opportunity.The bottom line is, people are more interested in taking care of something they own than in public property that “someone else” is supposed to care for.

4) Resource “scarcity.” One of the most powerful motivators for technological innovation is scarcity. Copper used to be essential to modern communication lines and fears of shortages led to exploration of both new sources and new solutions. One of those solutions was fiber optic cable. As CEI’s Fred Smith writes, 1,000 tons of copper can be replaced by just 55 pounds of silicon for fiber optic cables that carry over 1,000 times the amount of information as copper cables could.

5) A new coal plant. Americans are accustomed to both clean air and readily available, affordable electricity. But that is not the case all over the world. The people and businesses of energy poor Kosovo currently rely on two old power plants for their electricity, one of which (named Kosovo A) is a Soviet era model that is considered Europe’s dirtiest power plant.

It has exacted a heavy toll on air quality and the health of nearby Kosovars. The proposed solution: A new, modern coal plant to replace Kosovo A which is being financed in part by American company ContourGlobal. All energy choices have costs and benefits, including those like wind and solar which are considered “green.” But as technology has advanced, people have engineered ways to make coal power plants more efficient and safe while still providing the affordable, reliable baseload electricity that is so necessary for daily life.

6) Wealth. It’s clear that wealthier nations are greener nations for the simple reason that they can afford to be.

Ultimately, free people and free markets are the engine of superior environmental stewardship. Today should be as much a celebration of that as it is of nature.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Katie Tubb is a policy analyst for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

#1569 (4/24): SUNDAY SPECIAL"The Secret of Jackie Robinson's Greatness - TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK"

"The Secret of Jackie Robinson's Greatness - TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: April 15, 2016; 
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29158

Some Christians are heroic because they fought back against evil. Find out about a hero who was great because he didn’t fight back.

If you happen to watch a Major League Baseball game on TV[this past Friday night], you’ll have noticed something unusual about the players’ uniforms. Every major leaguer [was]wearing the number 42. That’s because 69 years ago [April 15th], Brooklyn Dodgers great Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

It’s almost impossible for us today to imagine what Robinson endured as the big leagues’ first black ballplayer. But his ordeal is captured brilliantly in the biopic film “42,” which came out just a few years ago. As good as the film is, it all but omits the most significant factor in Jackie Robinson’s ability to turn the other cheek; to endure almost unbearable insults and physical attacks on the field without lashing out himself. That factor was Robinson’s strong Christian faith.

As I note in my book, “7 Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness,” while he was a student at Pasadena Junior College, “Jackie met a Methodist preacher named Karl Downs. Downs knew that Jackie was a Christian and taught him that exploding in anger was not the Christian answer to injustice. But he explained that a life truly dedicated to Christ was not submissive; on the contrary, it was heroic…. Downs eventually led Jackie to a deeper faith in Jesus Christ. He began to see that the path to justice would be done not with fists and fury but with love and restraint.”

As “42” opens, we see Jackie Robinson sitting in the office of Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey as he hears the incredible news that Rickey wants him to play for the Dodgers. Then Rickey acts out the vicious varieties of bigotry Jackie will face from white hotel managers, restaurant waiters, and fellow ballplayers—insults he will have to face with dignity.

How much more dramatic this scene would have been had “42” told the whole story. Rickey knew that Robinson shared his Christian faith, and wanted to reinforce the spiritual dimensions of the battle both men were sure to face. Rickey pulled out a copy of a book by Giovanni Papini, “Life of Christ.” He flipped to the passage in which Papini discusses the Sermon on the Mount. There he referred to Jesus’ call to “turn the other cheek” as “the most stupefying of [Jesus’] revolutionary teachings.”

Rickey’s faith told him that injustice had to be fought wherever it was found. As for Jackie Robinson, he believed that God had chosen him for this noble purpose. And he knew that if he committed himself to doing this great thing, God would give him the strength he needed to see it through. Day after day, Jackie Robinson’s faith fueled his ability to play great baseball. Night after night, he got down on his knees, asking God for strength in the face of unrelenting hatred.

Now the reason that I included Jackie Robinson in a book about some of the greatest men who ever lived is not just because he played great baseball, but because he engaged in a heroic sacrifice. While he did not have to, Jackie Robinson followed Jesus and sacrificed his right to fight back.

If you’ve got young baseball fans in your family, or among your friends, I would highly recommend renting “42,” which is rated PG-13 because of the evil language that’s shouted at Robinson on the ball field. And then I hope you’ll also consider giving them a copy of my book, "7 Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness." Chuck Colson is in there as well.

If they read the book they’ll learn why Jackie Robinson changed America for the better. He did it by living out, on and off the baseball field, the revolutionary words of Jesus: Turn the other cheek.

(This commentary is adapted from one that originally aired on April 15, 2013.)

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"Jackie Robinson Day" - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson_Day
"Why we celebrate #42 Jackie Robinson" - Natasha L. Rogers | AL.com | April 13, 2016
7 Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness- Eric Metaxas | Thomas Nelson | April 2013

# 1568 (4/23) PRO-LIFE SAT: "When She Found Out She Had Cancer While Pregnant, She Had One Thought: 'Just Save My Baby'"

"WHEN SHE FOUND OUT SHE HAD CANCER WHILE PREGNANT, SHE HAD ONE THOUGHT: 'JUST SAVE MY BABY'" -  London, Eng; Apr. 21, 2016 | http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/21/when-she-found-out-she-had-cancer-while-pregnant-she-had-one-thought-just-save-my-baby/[AS I SEE IT: I love to share these stories because Christians tend to concede abortion is a viable option when the mother's physical life is in danger. But these stories remind us that a mother's love for her unborn can sometimes remove their fear of death and put the life of their unborn ahead of their own need for survival. I say, never underestimate the power of a mother's love.- Stan]

Kimberly and Adam with both their children

A mother’s love for her child is a special bond.

There are many wonderful and inspiring stories of the lengths which different mums have gone to to keep their children safe – even going so far as to put their own lives in danger to keep their little ones safe. For Kimberly Boreham, that danger came when she discovered she had cancer while she was 16 weeks pregnant.

Ultrasound scan - Without telling her husband, Kimberly went for secret blood tests when she noticed a lump on her neck, hoping the mystery swelling was just something to do with over-active hormones. On the same day, she had an ultrasound scan which revealed she was carrying a baby girl. But while giddy with excitement at the prospect of her son Parker having a little sister join him, she couldn’t help but fear the worst.
Good news and bad news - “I didn’t tell my husband Adam because it was a big day for us – it was the day we found out we were having a little girl,’ she told MailOnline.“It was a really mixed day. At this point I was trying to tell myself it was nothing and it was probably my pregnancy playing havoc with my immune system.“But it snowballed when they came back and didn’t give the results we expected.”
Cancer diagnosis - A few weeks later Kimberly was called in to see a consultant where she and husband Adam, 39, were given the devastating diagnosis that she had grade three cancer of the tonsils. It was treatable, but only if it hadn’t spread to the chest or elsewhere in her body, she was told. However, treatment would naturally carry a risk to herself and her unborn baby.
“He just came straight out with it and said it was cancer. It was a complete bombshell and is still. I was holding out for anything else.“It was such an out of body experience. He said ‘yes, you have got cancer’ and I looked at my husband and burst into tears. I completely forgot I was pregnant and just thought I was going to die.”
“I wanted to protect the baby” -But then moments later when the consultant mentioned the pregnancy, her worries immediately turned to the baby.“I put my hand on my bump and thought, “oh no”. I wanted to protect the baby, my health was secondary. I just felt completely responsible for the baby inside me. “It was incredibly difficult. I spent the night in tears lying on my son’s bedroom floor because I didn’t want to leave him. “I was thinking I won’t see him grow up and he’s not going to have a mummy. It was devastating.”
All a blur - Kimberly says that the next few days passed in a blur before she decided she had to ‘pull herself together’ and focus on beating the cancer. A whirlwind of appointments followed in the next few weeks including one with her obstetrician who warned doctors would ask her if she wanted to keep the baby. To her horror, she was told they might suggest she had the baby delivered from as early as 24 weeks, if she decided to keep her. “I can remember thinking ‘that’s tomorrow’.
A mother’s instinct - “It was crazy, I couldn’t contemplate the baby would be anywhere near ready.
“There was no way I wasn’t keeping the baby though, no question at all. I’d seen the scan and we’d bonded; it’s a mother’s instinct to want to protect the baby.” Doctors explained if she underwent surgery to remove the cancer, she could continue with the pregnancy for longer – giving both mother and baby the best chance of survival. As with all operations, the surgery carried some risks but medics agreed to monitor the baby throughout the four-hour procedure at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital.
‘Just save my baby’ - She was also adamant the surgeons looked after the unborn child ahead of herself but was advised she was their priority. “I said if anything goes wrong, just take the baby – but the doctors said wasn’t how it worked and they would be looking after me. “I was told the only way they would deliver her during the operation would be if I had a full cardiac arrest and they needed to save me. Then they would take the baby out. “It was horrible going in for the operation. I was holding onto my bump and asking her if she was all right and telling her everything would be OK.”

Holding newborn Darcey’s hand (left) and cuddling together in hospital (right)
Successful surgery - The surgery was a success and Kimberly had her tonsils, the infected area surrounding them and her lymph nodes removed from one side. She then faced an agonising wait to find out if the cancer had spread to her chest.Thankfully, scans revealed it hadn’t. She spent the next 10 days in hospital before discharging herself so she could recover at home. However, the effects of the surgery meant she struggled to eat or drink and had to relearn how to do it again.
Recovery and birth - The recovery took about six weeks until doctors would allow her to have further treatment – at 34 weeks – when the baby could be born. She was then induced so she could have a natural birth and avoid the need for further surgery.“We’d got to 34 weeks and that was the magic number,” Kimberly said. “I was booked into be induced on the Saturday morning and then to have chemotherapy just over a week later.
Darcey Boreham - After a complicated induction, baby Darcey was born on August 10th weighing 4lb 9oz. “She was a tiny thing. She cried straight away which was amazing, it was such a feeling of relief. I got to have a quick cuddle before she was whisked away. “She did really well. She spent 11 days in hospital and was on oxygen for a couple of days.“It was just a case of building up through feeding and weaning her off the oxygen until she was ready to come home.”
Mother and baby - Kimberley started six weeks of chemotherapy and radiotherapy at Addenbrookes Hospital while Darcey was still in hospital. Little Darcey then became a regular visitor to the chemotherapy ward, enjoying cuddles with her mother, proving popular with the other patients on the unit and giving her a much needed boost during treatment. Their time together helped the pair to bond as the cancer treatment robbed her of the chance to breastfeed her daughter, which Kimberley described as a real struggle.“It made it that much more bearable for me,’ she said.

Kimberly with Darcey and Parker

Bonding together - “The treatment made me very sick and she really helped me through it. “Not being able to breastfeed her was difficult for me as a mum but I have to look at the fact that she’s here and she’s healthy.”
Future - Now the family [is] looking to the future. “We just feel so lucky that we got to 34 weeks and gave her the best possible chance of her lungs being ready. At that gestation, every day counts for so much.“We are so lucky to have this little girl, she is absolutely amazing.
“My husband has been a rock” - “My husband has been a rock and brought Darcey and Parker in to see me most days I was in hospital which got me through.‘Being a mum to both of them is a blessing. I feel I helped get Darcey through and then she helped me to get through the chemotherapy sessions. I looked after her and then she’s looked after me.”

A happy ending for the whole family

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews Note: This originally appeared at the SPUC web site.

# 1567 (4/22) "No Tolerance for Religious Tolerance? - DENYING TRUE COEXISTENCE

"No Tolerance for Religious Tolerance? - DENYING TRUE COEXISTENCE - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: April 21, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29185

The words “religious liberty” don’t mean what they once did to many people, especially if big business has its way.

You’ve seen those ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers, right? You know, the ones where the word is spelled out using religious symbols from Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Gay rights, Judaism, and so on? I call it ridiculous because, as someone once wrote: “The C wants to kill the E, X, T, and the O. The O offers peaceful non-resistance, which will be ineffective if real trouble breaks out. The E feels like it’s been oppressed, making it intolerant of the C, the X, and the T. The I and the S are numerically irrelevant, but are just necessary to spell out the word. And the sticker is mostly directed at the T (or the Christian), who ironically poses no threat whatsoever to any of the others.”

In other words, the “Coexist” bumper sticker slogan assumes that each ideology be emptied of its actual conviction if its to work. And according to Colson Center board member Jennifer Marshall, that’s what big business is currently trying to sell to the American people.

In a piece for Religion News Service, Marshall says the recent controversies over religious freedom amount to a test of whether those who so loudly proclaim the need for coexistence are prepared to live by it. Exhibit A is the new Mississippi law that ensures that churches and other religious groups aren’t punished for declining to participate in weddings against their convictions, or for setting personnel and housing policies based on their deeply held beliefs. Further, this law allows private businesses and schools to set their own policies for bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. In that sense, the law models peaceful coexistence on very contentious social issues.

But one corporation, IBM is claiming that, “(T)his legislation will permit discrimination against people based on their marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”

Not so, according to Jennifer Marshall. The law protects those with religious scruples from being discriminated against. “What the new law does,” she points out, “is to prevent discrimination by ensuring the government will not force people to violate their consciences in very specific contexts spelled out by the law.”

For example, the law guarantees everyone legally eligible for a marriage license gets one, while allowing clerks with religious objections to opt out of directly issuing marriage licenses. That way, there will be no courthouse showdowns like the one involving Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis last year. “Mississippi’s policy shows that we can coexist,” Marshall says. “Why would big business oppose that?”

That’s a good question given the number of times large corporate entities have entered these hot debates just in the last few years. Think of all of the corporate-led attacks and blackmail against common-sense religious freedom legislation in Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and now Mississippi. And then think of the bakers, florists, and photographers in places such as New Mexico, Colorado and Washington State who have been forced to choose between their beliefs and ruinous fines forcing them out of business. They were not allowed to co-exist, at least not without compromising their convictions.

As Jennifer Marshall points out, true advocates of cultural coexistence seek conscience protections for all, not just those who adhere to the vision of the sexual revolution. Citing a poll that says 63 percent of state residents support the law, Jennifer writes, “Citizens in Mississippi and elsewhere are looking for solutions that defuse cultural tension over issues of sexual orientation and gender identity . . .The corporate establishment’s campaign against these common sense policies disregards all that. Citizens would do well to see through the big business marketing blitz against religious liberty. This corporate messaging puts neither the common good nor constitutional principle first.”

No, it certainly doesn’t. We’ll link you to Jennifer’s terrific article at BreakPoint.org. Please read it and share it with others. 

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - Coexistence should be for all people, as should religious liberty, which is a foundation of our Constitution, and, at least until this decade, a government-protected right. Sometimes legislation does have to spell out common sense protections for people with religious convictions for peaceful coexistence to occur. The Mississippi law attempts to do just that. Read Jennifer Marshall's excellent article "Why corporations are wrong about the Mississippi law" linked below.
RESOURCES
"Mississippi House Bill 1523" - Mississippi Legislature | 2016 Regular Session

"Why corporations are wrong about the Mississippi law" - Jennifer A. Marshall | Religious News Service | April 11, 2016;http://religionnews.com/2016/04/11/mississippi-north-carolina-religious-freedom/

"Corporatism and Gay Marriage: Natural Bedfellows" - Patrick J. Deneen | The American Conservative | January 29, 2014; http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2014/01/29/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/

#1566 (4/21) "The Media Have It Wrong: Andrew Jackson’s Legacy Was Fighting Crony Capitalism"

"THE MEDIA HAVE IT WRONG: ANDREW JACKSON'S LEGACY WAS FIGHTING CRONY CAPITALISM" - Jarrett Stepman / April 20, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/20/the-media-has-it-wrong-andrew-jacksons-legacy-was-fighting-crony-capitalism/ [AS I SEE IT: The recent announcement that Andrew Jackson would be removed from the $20 bill has been met with virtual silence in the media. This article helps to provide reasons why Americans admired this President enough to put his image on a frequently use piece of currency. We need to be careful not to let skewed views of our past heroes cause us to forget what made for their greatness. - Stan]

The Jacksonian creed was opportunity for all, favoritism to none. This is a message that should resonate today. (Photo: istockphoto)

After a relentless campaign by conservatives, progressives, and Broadway musicals to keep Founding Father Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, it appears the Treasury Department will keep Hamilton. According to Politico, the agency will instead replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman. It’s a shame that progressives (and even conservatives) have been quick to ditch Jackson.

While it’s true that Jackson is often remembered for his alleged reputation for violence, the Trail of Tears, or perhaps even the 1959 Johnny Horton song, “Battle of New Orleans,” his true legacy is much more important to America.

Opportunity to All, Favoritism to None -The Jacksonian creed for instance was opportunity for all, favoritism to none. This is a message that should resonate today.

His veto of the bank’s charter was one of the most eloquent attacks on crony capitalism in American history. Taking a stand against crony capitalism is of even greater importance today, as the failure of institutions like the Ex-Im Bank, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a host of other organizations that violate the principles of free-market capitalism to benefit a select few with influence in Washington, D.C.

Jackson also wanted to limit the power of the federal government to fund what he believed were local projects better left to the states. Jackson vetoed a number of infrastructure projects because under his view of the Constitution it was up to the states to fund them. He stopped the Maysville Road in Kentucky because he believed the “appropriations involve the sanction of a principle that concedes to the General Government an unlimited power over the subject of internal improvements.”

Jackson was a larger-than-life figure emblematic of a young United States: A country fighting for survival in a sea of hostile, powerful European regimes dead set on eradicating this unprecedented experiment of liberty. His life still has many lessons to inspire Americans, and he stood for much more than simple-minded populism.

Jackson wrote in his veto of the Second National Bank charter message to Congress:
     "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government."

A Distorted Legacy -Though his record was occasionally blemished and his triumphs mostly forgotten—Jackson’s legacy deserves a place with other greats in the history of the republic, and his principles will likely have a growing, not waning impact on the future of the United States.

Unfortunately all we hear today are Jackson’s faults. A recent Huffington Post op-ed claimed that it would be a tragedy to remove Hamilton from the $10 bill for the “pro-slavery, genocidal President Andrew Jackson.” A Washington Post podcast focused almost entirely on Jackson’s “dark legacy” of violence and oppression with very little about why the man was so beloved by Americans at the time. Federalist contributor, James Polous, claimed that Jackson should be discarded because he represented nothing but “militant populism.”

Like many great presidents, Jackson was a polarizing figure who sparked both unhesitating admiration from supporters and loathing from opponents. Though he had many achievements and failures during his eight years in office, two aspects of his presidency stand out: The veto of the Second Bank of the United States’ charter and his principled stand against disunion during the nullification crisis.

Though Jackson has often been misidentified as economic leveler and a “populist” in the past, he was in fact a strong believer in the free-market as opposed to crony capitalism. In Jackson’s mind, the sordid connections between big business and big government would lead to tyranny.
His stand against crony capitalism and for limited government are worth emulating, and though he had widespread popular appeal, his worldview could not be boiled down to sheer populism without reason.

Jackson Stands Against Disunion
     Though Jackson believed strongly in federalism and decentralized government, he still thought there was a role for the federal government under the Constitution that also couldn’t be violated by the states. He put his foot down when Southern radicals attempted to “nullify” tariffs legally passed by Congress. Jackson generally advocated for freer trade, but the law and the Union came first.

Many of the nullifiers hoped that Jackson’s strong inclination toward limited government would move  him into their political camp, but Jackson would have none of it. At a celebration of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday  filled with militant nullifiers, Jackson made a toast of seven words, which Ronald Reagan called among the most important any American has ever spoken: “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved.”

Jackson drew the line of what was acceptable under the Constitution, and negotiated for a reduction in the tariffs. He staved off one of the most threatening constitutional crisis in American history and ended the threat of anarchy and secession, giving Abraham Lincoln and his supporters strong historical precedent for the perpetual union during the Civil War.

Historian William Garrott Brown summed up why Americans of the nineteenth century so strongly admired Jackson: "He was the man who had his way. He was the American whose simple virtues his countrymen most clearly understood, whose trespasses they most readily forgave; and until Americans are altogether changed, many, like the Democrats of the ‘Twenties and ‘Thirties, will still “vote for Jackson,”—for the poor boy who fought his way, step by step, to the highest station; for the soldier who always went to meet the enemy at the gate; for the president who never shirked a responsibility…"

Jackson deserves greater recognition from modern Americans; old heroes should not be so quickly cast aside.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal.

#1565 (4/20) "...The Strange Standoff Between Science and Philosophy"

"HELPING SENATORS THINK MORE CLEARLY - THE STRANGE STANDOFF BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY" - John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: April 19, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29173

We all need help thinking more clearly -- you, me, U.S. Senators like Barbara Boxer. And denying it sometimes proves the opposite.

A hearing that was held last week of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works consisted of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Alex Epstein, the President for the Center for Industrial Progress, and Father Robert Sirico, a priest and president of the Acton Institute, among others.

The topic was how the president’s climate policies had impacted economic opportunity, national security, and related issues. As Mr. Epstein finished his testimony by telling a story from his book A Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Senator Boxer demanded: “Mr. Epstein, Are you a scientist?” “No,” he replied. “I’m a philosopher.” When Boxer sarcastically implied that he didn’t belong in the hearing because he wasn’t a scientist, Epstein pointed out that philosophy helps folks think more clearly. Boxer snapped back, “I don’t need help thinking more clearly.”

Well, with all due respect to the good senator from California, the entire exchange demonstrated she does need help thinking more clearly, since hers was a classic example of a self-defeating set of statements. First, if philosophers do not belong in such a hearing because they are not scientists, do politicians belong who are not scientists?

Second, the idea that science trumps philosophy is incoherent, since it is a philosophical statement. One could never prove empirically that science trumps philosophy; this is not an observable, repeatable truth about the universe concluded via scientific investigation. Her statement proposed a view of knowledge, or an epistemological assertion (to use the 50 cent word). In other words, her statement that science trumps philosophy was a statement of philosophy.

It only became stranger when Sen. Boxer then turned her guns on Fr. Robert Sirico, and challenged how he, as a Catholic priest, could disagree with Pope Francis, who tweeted once that “inequality is the root of all evil.” She then suggested that because the Acton Institute receives donations from corporations and philanthropists, Fr. Sirico couldn’t be trusted to testify.

Now we won’t even deal with the misunderstanding the Senator has about papal proclamations, because the logical fallacies here just continue to stack up: red herrings, poisoning the well, ad hominem, etc etc. First, the Pope’s tweet to which Sen Boxer appeals was not a scientific statement but, you guessed it, a philosophical one.  Second, the good Senator did not finance her own campaigns. If Fr. Sirico is disqualified because the Acton Institute receives donations from folks committed to certain political and moral ideas, she would be too, since she receives donations from folks committed to political and moral ideas.

Now I can’t help but think here of Professor Diggory from the Chronicles of Narnia muttering under his breath: “Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools!”

Beyond that however, is something else worth remembering from C.S. Lewis. In his book The Abolition of Man, Lewis warned of the triumph of science over everything, especially over areas of philosophy and morality. The triumph of science, he warned, is really the mastery of scientists over nature. And the last thing conquered would be humanity itself. In other words, the triumph of science would be the mastery of some men—certain elites committed to a worldview—over other men.

If you’ve never read The Abolition of Man, it’s one of those rare books that’s never been more true than it is right now. I urge you to pick it up and read it. And we have it for you at our BreakPoint.org online bookstore.

And may God keep us from the sort of arrogance that would dare suggest that we need no help in thinking more clearly. We all do, don’t we?

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As John highlighted, logic and clear thinking are necessary in every discipline of life, whether that is science, philosophy, politics or any other.  For C. S. Lewis's perspective on the so-called logic of the day, get a copy of "The Abolition of Man." 

"Logical Fallacies" - Purdue Online Writing Lab - https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

The Abolition of Man- C. S. Lewis | HarperOne
The Chronicles of Narnia - C. S. Lewis | HarperCollins

#1564 (4/19) "Protesters, Politicians Spar at Supreme Court Over Obama’s Immigration Program"

"PROTESTERS, POLITICIANS, SPAR AT SUPREME COURT OVER OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION PROGRAM" - 
Josh Siegel / April 18, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/18/protestors-politicians-spar-at-supreme-court-over-obamas-immigration-program/

Supporters of President Obama's immigration programs, known as DACA and DAPA, called for the Supreme Court to let the actions stand. (Photo: Josh Siegel/The Daily Signal)

Mercedes Garcia would be eligible to benefit from President Barack Obama’s 2014 immigration executive actions, with the opportunity to earn quasi-legal status that would allow her three U.S. citizen daughters to not worry about their mother being arrested. Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican congressman from Garcia’s home state of Colorado, doesn’t believe Garcia—who is living in the country illegally—should have the chance to gain from a policy he considers “bad” and “illegal.”

Garcia and Buck were players on Monday in a divisive scene that played out before the Supreme Court, whose eight justices were hearing arguments over perhaps the most contentious and impact-ful case to come before them this term. “There a lot of people who want to come and protest and more power to them,” Buck said, acknowledging supporters of Obama’s program protesting on Monday, who significantly outnumbered dissenters. “This is democracy in action.” “Unfortunately,” he added, “a lot of Americans who are hardworking and having their wages suppressed as a result of illegal immigration are feeling other burdens so they don’t have the time to come here and protest.”

The case, brought by 26 states, challenges Obama’s program to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work in the country lawfully. The executive actions, announced in November 2014 and put on hold by lower courts, would permit as many as 5 million illegal immigrants who are the parents of U.S. citizens or permanent resident children to apply for temporary deportation protection and work permits.

That part of the program is known as DAPA. A second major part of the plan would expand Obama’s already existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which would expand the pool of immigrants brought here as children who since 2012 have been able to apply for temporary protection and work permits.

If the Supreme Court were to let the plan stand, it would help people like Garcia, whose three U.S. citizen children—each of whom were born in the country—make her eligible to apply for protection. Garcia came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico more than 17 years ago, and she currently works a steady job in Boulder, Colo., as a nurse. “DAPA would mean I won’t have to worry about what I would say to people about my mom’s status, because right now I have to build a wall and be careful because I could get her in trouble,” Garcia’s oldest daughter, Carrie Gutierrez, 17, told The Daily Signal. “I wouldn’t have to worry anymore about my mom not getting home. I have a panic attack just thinking about that. I would have to take care of my family [if Garcia were deported] because I am the oldest daughter.”

Conservatives like Buck and the mostly Republican attorneys general challenging the program argue that it would harm the states by costing them money to give subsidized driver’s licenses to DAPA recipients who qualify for them.... The states also claim they would face “substantial education, healthcare, and law enforcement costs.” One of the questions the Supreme Court justices are considering is whether the states challenging Obama’s program would actually suffer direct injury that gives them standing to sue. Colorado, Buck’s state and where Garcia resides, already has a program to license drivers who are living in the country illegally.

While the Supreme Court first must address the standing question, the justices also asked the Obama administration and the case’s challengers to argue the larger question of whether the president violated the “take care” clause of the constitution, which requires him to enforce the nation’s laws.

The Obama administration contends the president has broad authority in choosing who to deport and who not to deport, and that the federal government does not have the resources to deport all of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally. The government says it makes sense to expend those resources on criminally-convicted illegal immigrants, and recent arrivals, rather than on people who are more settled, and who have behaved since arriving in the country.

Opponents believe Obama’s plan goes farther than the normal “prosecutorial discretion” given to the president. “What he [Obama] has done is legislate from the executive branch, and he has ignored the legislation that Congress has enacted and has violated the rule of law,” Buck told The Daily Signal. “If the president enforced the laws that are on the books, we would have an immigration system that works. No one in this country that I know is opposed to legal immigration. We are opposed to illegal immigration.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in June. A 4-4 tie—splitting evenly the court’s liberals and conservatives—would leave in place an appeals court ruling that blocks the plan. But such a ruling would not create Supreme Court precedent, leading to further uncertainty in the immigration system.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Josh Siegel is the news editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Josh.

"The Highlights of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Obama’s Executive Amnesty" - 
Elizabeth Slattery / April 18, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/18/the-highlights-of-the-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-obamas-executive-amnesty/

# 1563 (4/18) "9 Charts You Need to See for Tax Day"

"9 CHARTS YOU NEED TO SEE FOR TAX DAY" - Romina Boccia / April 15, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/15/9-charts-you-need-to-see-for-tax-day/

(Photo: istockphoto)

Tax Day is almost here. As Americans all across the country finalize their tax filings, let’s take a look at where all those tax dollars go. Here are 9 charts from Heritage’s “Federal Budget in Pictures” covering federal spending, taxes, and debt:

1) Family Spending


2) Entitlement Spending

3) Interest on Debt


4) Public Debt

5) Corporate Tax Rates


6) Income Taxes

7) Debt Service Costs

8) Autopilot Spending   

9) Income Taxes



Romina Boccia focuses on federal spending and the national debt as the deputy director of Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

# 1562 (4/17) SUNDAY SPECIAL: [TODAY IS] Stand With the Persecuted Sunday, a Call to Solidarity Between Domestic and Global Church"

"APRIL 17: STAND WITH THE PERSECUTED SUNDAY, A CALL TO SOLIDARITY BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND GLOBAL CHURCH" - By Ken Blackwell and Dr. Thomas F. Farr, Family Research Council; April 12, 2016; https://stream.org/april-17-stand-with-persecuted-sunday-solidarity-church/ [AS I SEE IT: This is something so important I don't believe we should limit our focus on the issue to just this one day. For awhile now, I've been praying EACH MORNING for our persecuted brothers and sisters around the world as well as giving to one of It is said that at least several hundred are executed for their faith somewhere in the world. Also, untold tens of thousands languish in prisons which in some cases are merely empty shipping containers! When we meet these courageous believers in Heaven, will we at least be able to say we prayed for them? By also supporting different organizations that advocate for and minister to these fellow believers, we have an opportunity as the Church to stand with them. The question is: What are YOU and your church body doing to help beyond today? - Stan]

Last month, the United States formally recognized that ISIS is committing genocide against Middle Eastern Christians and other minorities in Iraq and Syria. What next?

While steps must be taken to stop future atrocities from occurring, provide aid to those whose lives have been upended, and to plan for their future, we must also recognize and nurture the solidarity that we as American Christians share with our brothers and sisters overseas. To advocate for them we must love them. And to love them we must know them.

Without this enriched relationship being developed over the long term, advocacy will languish. Just as importantly, we will miss the opportunity for spiritual participation in their suffering as members of the Body of Christ, and the joyful solidarity that results.

To this end, the Family Research Council (FRC) and partnering organizations Open Doors, The Voice of the Martyrs, Institute of Religion and Democracy, In Defense of Christians, Christian Solidarity Worldwide-USA, the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, and International Christian Concern are calling on churches across America to observe April 17, 2016 as Stand With the Persecuted Sunday.

During services TODAY, nearly 40,000 churches in the United States are being asked to take a few minutes to stand with believers across this nation and around the world by (1) praying for the persecuted (and for the conversion of the persecutors), (2) participating in practical ministry to brothers and sisters overseas, and (3) promoting public policy that protects the persecuted, such as standing for their right to religious freedom, and for a secure home for them and their posterity. Prayer not only benefits the persecuted; it benefits us, and is used by God to strengthen our (and their) relationship with Him. It naturally leads to practical ministry, as our hearts are drawn to our brothers and sisters. It also leads us to want to see that fellow believers are protected overseas.

This is a tall order. It will not happen overnight. But if and when the domestic church becomes energized to support the overseas church, when we recognize that persecution against them is persecution of the entire Body of Christ, this energy will ricochet into the political and cultural spheres. One result will be an increased focus on religious freedom in our foreign policy.

Is the electorate currently demanding this of our presidential contenders? Not yet. But the domestic church is a sleeping giant. If it awakens to the needs of our brothers and sisters overseas and begins to speak out as one, our government will respond.

Voters must demand that the U.S. government actually advance religious freedom in its foreign policy — our foreign policy — as it is obligated to do under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act. Of all people, Christian Americans should understand that religious freedom is more than a right not to be tortured, or a mere private right of worship. It is the right to “exercise” religion as our First Amendment puts it, or to “manifest” religious beliefs in public life, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights puts it. Working to protect this vigorous understanding of religious freedom overseas will energize Americans to defend it more effectively at home, where it is increasingly at risk.

In fact, the horrors wrought by ISIS have crystallized a pressing issue — the global decline of religious freedom and the increasing persecution of Christians and other believers abroad. Re-energized engagement on this issue requires a re-energized church, which is the goal of Stand With the Persecuted Sunday. While the road will be long and difficult, it is time to begin. April 17th is our time to stand up for religious freedom for all God’s children.

 Check out the video clip at - http://www.frc.org/stand

[bold, italics, underlined, and colored emphasis mine]

Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council. He was a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Dr. Thomas F. Farr is director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Associate Professor of the Practice of Religion and World Affairs at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

# 1561 (4/16) PRO-LIFE SAT: "CBS Show “Big Bang Theory” Celebrates the Humanity of Unborn Children" / Arkansas Now Calling Unborn "Children" Rather than Fetuses

"CBS SHOW “BIG BANG THEORY” CELEBRATES THE HUMANITY OF UNBORN CHILDREN" - Micaiah Bilger, Apr. 13, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/13/cbs-show-big-bang-theory-celebrates-the-humanity-of-unborn-children/[AS I SEE IT: However brief this acknowledgement of the person-hood of the unborn, the fact that it could be noted without great backlash is encouraging in light of the pro-abortion slant of today's programming even on network TV. And the fact that this was a well-watched program and is at what used to be called "the family hour" (before 9 pm on a "school" night is also significant. It's comforting that we can find moments such as these even in our corsened culture. PRAY that there will be more such moments.- Stan]

The Big Bang Theory, arguably TV’s most popular comedy today, captured an adorable, life-affirming moment in its latest episode when three of the characters listened to an unborn baby’s heartbeat together.

The April 7 episode [go to the weblink above to find a video link]showed expecting parents Howard and Bernadette sitting together on the sofa with Howard’s best friend Raj. Howard moves a special microphone over his wife’s stomach that allows them to hear the baby’s heart beating. The three friends sit in awe as they listen to the unborn baby’s heart thump through the speaker.

“Isn’t that the best?” Bernadette says.

“You guys made a person!” Raj adds, smiling in awe.

Howard snuggles close to his wife and says, “We did.”

It is a special moment for several reasons. In a past season of the show, Bernadette said she did not want to have children, because she wanted to pursue her career. In real life, women sometimes have abortions because they say a baby would get in the way of their career. Bernadette could easily have taken that route; but her mind appears to be changed. She is excited to be a mother and in awe of her unborn child.

Even more so, the moment is heartwarming because the characters acknowledge that the unborn baby is a valuable human being, a “person.” Hollywood and the mainstream media don’t often do that. They typically bow to the pro-abortion rhetoric that avoids any language recognizing unborn babies for who they are.

This past winter, abortion activists even made a fuss over a Super Bowl commercial for Doritos that showed an ultrasound of an unborn baby. The radical abortion group NARAL claimed the ad “humanized fetuses.” Later, NARAL was called out for its ridiculous criticism of the commercial.

Maybe that’s why the new Big Bang Theory episode has received little attention from abortion activists. As technology advances and the access to it expands, more people are realizing the truth that unborn babies are valuable people, too.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"This State is Now Calling Babies Before Birth “Unborn Children” Instead of “Fetuses” - 
Emily Derois, Apr. 13, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/13/this-state-is-now-calling-babies-before-birth-unborn-children-instead-of-fetusus/

Despite a great deal of controversy, Arkansas State Medical Board voted on Thursday to use the life-affirming terms “unborn child” and “unborn human individual” in abortion-related regulations.

The board had presented the wording governing abortion procedures for doctors in January, changing the Legislature’s language to “fetus” because its members said that was an accepted medical term, while “unborn child” was not. A subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council sent the proposed rules back to the board with directions to restore the original language. The board did so Thursday on a split vote. Additional pro-life requirements for abortion providers who do chemical abortions also were added to the law, according to the report. 

Language does matter in the abortion debate. Abortion activists try to hide the unborn child’s humanity from the culture by describing it as a “fetus” or a “pregnancy” or even a “clump of cells” because when women recognize that the child in their womb is a child, they are less likely to have an abortion. This change in terminology, though slight, will certainly help in defending unborn lives.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"Alabama House Committee Passes Bill to Define Unborn Baby as a Person and Ban Abortions" - Micaiah Bilger, Apr.13, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/13/alabama-house-committee-passes-bill-to-define-unborn-baby-as-a-person-and-ban-abortions/
"TV Shows its Conservative Side on Abortion Issue" - Jonah Goldberg | Apr 15, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2016/04/15/tv-shows-its-conservative-side-on-abortion-issue-n2148725/page/full