#1636 (6/30) "Pro-Life Setback - THE SUPREMES STRIKE DOWN WOMEN’S SAFETY"

"Pro-Life Setback - THE SUPREMES STRIKE DOWN WOMEN’S SAFETY" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org: June 28, 2016;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29481

[Monday]’s Supreme Court ruling on Texas’s abortion law was a setback for the pro-life cause. But not as big of a setback as some would have you believe.

... the Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote, struck down Texas’s House Bill 2, which required, among other things, a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges in a hospital within thirty miles of where the procedure is performed. It also required that “the minimum standards for an abortion facility be equivalent to the minimum standards … for ambulatory surgical centers.”

Let’s not mince words: The Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is a setback for the pro-life cause.

To fully grasp what all of this means, some background is in order. While Roe v. Wade established a “constitutional right” to abortion, state and local governments may regulate some aspects of abortion: for instance, requiring a waiting period and parental consent in the case of minors.

But in series of cases culminating in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court placed limits on these kinds of regulations, ruling that regulations that place an “undue burden” on a woman’s “right” to an abortion were unconstitutional.

In the 24 years since Casey, what constitutes an “undue burden” has been decided on a case-by-case basis as pro-life forces and their legislative allies have tested legal boundaries. In the Texas case, pro-abortion forces responded by claiming that the “right” to an abortion was “in jeopardy.”

Now all of this, of course, was nonsense. But even someone like CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wondered if the Court would uphold the “undue burden” standard or “give states an even freer hand to restrict abortion rights.”

Both sides got their answer on Monday. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer wrote that “There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure.” He added that “the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”

In response to the decision, the Alliance Defending Freedom expressed its “[disappointment] that the Supreme Court has ruled against a law so clearly designed to protect the health and safety of women in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal.” You might remember Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist and his so-called “house of horrors.”

As ADF wrote, “Abortionists shouldn’t be given a free pass to elude medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow. Any abortion facilities that don’t meet basic health and safety standards are not facilities that anyone should want to remain open.”

Unfortunately, five justices disagreed, which leaves us with the obvious question: Where to from here?
     First, let’s remember this is only one front in a continuing struggle that is making progress. The current abortion rate is lower than it’s been since before Roe was decided in 1973. And even without laws like the Texas one in place, pregnancy care centers outnumber abortion clinics by as much as three-to-one.

So while the decision is indeed a setback, it does not change the brilliant day-out-and-day-in work of so much of the pro-life movement. Limits of what can be done legislatively will continue to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we’ll continue to pray them on. But remember: the goal is not merely to make abortion illegal. We want abortion to be unthinkable.

Which leaves us with the hard work of continuing to create a culture of life. For those of you hard at work, I can’t thank you enough for your faithfulness. Tomorrow on BreakPoint, I’ll have some more thoughts for you on this decision. 

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"Women’s Health and Safety at Risk after Supreme Court Rules Against Texas Law"- Katie Heller | ADF website | June 27, 2016; http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2016/06/27/breaking-women-s-health-and-safety-at-risk-after-supreme-court-rules-against-texas-law
"Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973" - Sandhya Somashekhar | Washington Post | February 2, 2014; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
"Explainer: Supreme Court ruling on Texas abortion case" - Joe Carter | Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission | June 27, 2016; http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/explainer-supreme-court-ruling-on-texas-abortion-case
"Whole Woman’s Health et al v. Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, et al" - Supreme Court decision text pdf | June 27, 2016; http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Texas Law Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks Still Intact Despite Supreme Court Decision" - 
Steven Ertelet, June 27, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/despite-supreme-court-decision-texas-law-banning-abortions-after-20-weeks-still-intact/

#1635 (6/29) "SCOTUS Chooses Riskier Business On Abortion"

"SCOTUS CHOOSES RISKIER BUSINESS ON ABORTION" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 27, 2016;http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F40&f=WU16F14 [AS I SEE IT: This will truly go down as one of the saddest days in our nation's history but I hope it will waken people to how critical it is that we have a President and a Senate who will confirm only justices who will allow States the right to decide how best to protect their citizens - in this case the mothers of the unborn as well as the unborn themselves. If there is an upside to this tragic decision, may it be the election of those kind of leaders this fall. If not, we must be ready for even more egregious decisions in the future. - Stan]

It's a surreal day in America when hundreds of young women stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court and cheer a decision that subjects them to dirty and dangerous abortion chambers like Kermit Gosnell's. Yet that's exactly what happened this morning when five unelected justices decided to topple a law enacted by the leaders of Texas, which required that abortionists offer such "controversial" things as trained staff, up-to-date sanitation codes, or hallways wide enough to accommodate gurneys.

It was the first abortion case decided by the Supreme Court in eight years -- and it was a major blow to women's health. With help from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the majority sent Texas -- and every other state -- back to the dark ages of health care, where abortionists can continue cutting corners on basic safety to save a buck. 

And in one of the saddest ironies of our time, feminists celebrated. Now, instead of giving women protection from profit-first abortionists, the Court is subjecting mothers to clinics with looser regulations than a public pool. All Texas leaders asked in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt is that the women who choose abortion have the safest and best care possible. That includes bringing these facilities up to the same standards as surgical facilities, as well as requiring doctors who perform abortions to be able to admit patients to hospitals in the event of a complication -- which 26,500 women experienced in 2011 alone (3,200 required hospitalization).

But instead of embracing these upgrades, the abortion industry fought them -- letting slip the mask on how much they truly care about women. Even Roe v. Wade acknowledged that the "State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion... is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient." 

Unfortunately, the Court has decided that safety puts an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortion. In particular, the Left argued, Texas's H.B. 2 would have put several of the state's abortion centers out of business. But that's not the fault of the law. That's the fault of money-grubbing abortionists who'd rather put profits in their pockets and not in renovations that could be the difference between life or death for the women who enter the facility. Every abortion facility in Texas had the opportunity to upgrade their standards. The fact that so few were willing to says more about the industry than it does about the constitutionality of the Lone Star's law.

Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts alluded to that in their joint dissent, pointing out that "at least nine Texas clinics may have ceased performing abortions (or reduced capacity) for one or more of the reasons having nothing to do with provisions challenged here." But, Justice Alito went on, "When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues, we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner. The Court has not done that here." A frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas called out the Court's uneven interpretation of the law. "...[T]he majority applies the undue burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come... And the majority seriously burdens states, which must guess at how much more compelling their interests must be to pass muster and what 'commonsense inferences' of an undue burden this court will identify next."

In a nod to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, he quoted from the man whose absence on this case was so keenly felt, arguing that this outcome "exemplifies the court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'" Hair and nail salons, tanning centers, and restaurants all have to meet basic health standards. Shouldn't abortion facilities? As a disappointed Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-Texas) said today in a statement, "H.B. 2 was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives." 

As they've done with Obamacare, marriage, and abortion, five unelected people are making it impossible for elected leaders to run their states the way they and voters see fit. And in the process, they're putting millions of lives at risk. If anyone needed more proof about the importance of this year's election, this is it. When the next pro-life case makes its way to the high court, whose Supreme Court justices do you want deciding it? In the meantime, FRC will continue doing what these five judicial activists have not: defending women and children from the predatory abortion industry. Because Texans -- and all Americans -- deserve better.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clarence Thomas Slams Supreme Court 'Bending the Rules' to Create 'Putative Right to Abortion'" - Steven Ertelt, June 27, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/clarence-thomas-slams-supreme-court-bending-the-rules-to-create-putative-right-to-abortion/  
"Clinically Insane: Nation Reacts to Abortion Bombshell" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 28, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F44&f=WU16F15

# 1634 (6/28) "A License to Discriminate - CALIFORNIA’S ASSAULT ON CHRISTIAN COLLEGES"

"A License to Discriminate - CALIFORNIA’S ASSAULT ON CHRISTIAN COLLEGES" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: June 27, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29471

Some in the Golden State say Christian schools have a license to discriminate. Actually, the opposite may be true.

Earlier this year my BreakPoint colleague, John Stonestreet, told you that the U. S. Department of Education, under pressure from LGBT groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, agreed to create a public, searchable database of Christian colleges and universities that obtained Title IX waivers based on claims of religious freedom. John and others called it a “Christian college hit list” because it will allow LGBT activists to target Christian colleges for harassment and possible legal challenges. Sen. Ron Wyden and several other Democrats in the Senate say the waivers “allow for discrimination under the guise of religious liberty.”

Christian colleges, for their part, say the exemptions are nothing new and allow religious schools, for example, to provide male-only or female-only dorms. They fear the database will make them easy targets for those who hate them. You think those fears are overblown? Well, fast-forward to today.

The California state Senate has passed a bill that would make it harder for Christian institutions to obtain religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT individuals, and make state grant money more difficult to obtain while making it easier for students and staff to sue them. California, by the way, is the nation’s largest state and home to more than 30 higher education institutions that possess religious exemptions to federal or state anti-discrimination laws—at least for now.

The bill’s author, Sen. Ricardo Lara, claims LGBT students and staff have been expelled or fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Lara says, “These universities have a license to discriminate, and students have absolutely no recourse.” Actually, not true—there are plenty of public and private universities in California to choose from that openly accept LGBT lifestyles.

The bill, S.B. 1146, requires schools receiving the exemptions to disclose them publicly. It would also allow religious exemptions only for seminaries or religious vocational training schools, not colleges and universities—so most Christian schools would, in the end, be unable to enforce standards of conduct based on their faith.

While this challenge to religious liberty only concerns California, we all know that what goes on in California, particularly when it comes to matters of culture and law, doesn’t stay in California.

Shockingly, S.B. 1146 has received scant notice in the press, either inside or outside the state. Julia C. Duin of the excellent GetReligion blog, wonders why. “Where is the secular media on this?” Julia asks. “If the shoe [were] on the other foot and the state legislature was pondering a bill perceived as anti-gay, don’t you think the state’s largest newspapers, not to mention TV or radio, would be all over it?”

Apparently these vaunted defenders of free speech have forgotten the importance of freedom of religion—which is also part of the First Amendment!

On his Facebook page, Robert George, the Princeton law professor and past chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, notes a worrisome trend in America right now. “Many among the liberal secularist faithful,” George writes, “assume that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who hold to traditional principles of sexual morality hate those who think and act contrary to those principles. That’s false and dangerous. What’s even worse, though, is that many appear to think that they are justified in hating, and even seeking to impose civil disabilities upon, those who stubbornly refuse to accept liberal secularist ideology.”

You bet! You might even call it a license to discriminate.

RESOURCES
"Christian colleges on chopping block: Why are California newspapers ignoring the story?"
- Julia Duin | GetReligion.org; http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/6/11/christian-colleges-on-chopping-block-why-are-california-newspapers-ignoring-story
"Senate bill says religion no excuse for LGBT discrimination" - Rachel Cohrs | Sacramento Bee | May 26, 2016; http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article80208127.html
"Christian Colleges & Gender Identity: The Next Assault on Religious Freedom?" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | February 18, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28887
“It’s Going to be an Issue.” Biola, Conscience, and the Culture War
Samuel James | MereOrthodoxy.com | June 17, 2016; https://mereorthodoxy.com/biola-california-non-discrimination-law-religious-liberty/

#1633 (6/27) "A Little Brit Stronger"

"A LITTLE BIT STRONGER" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 24, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F37&f=WU16F13

The war for Britain's independence didn't involve muskets and cannons, but ballots. And last night, the U.K. cast plenty of them in favor of leaving the suffocating authority of the European Union (E.U.). In a blockbuster vote that came down to the wire, the British people rocked the world with the decision to stand on its own in an increasingly dangerous world where autonomy could literally save people's lives.

Despite calls from Prime Minister David Cameron, U.S. meddlers Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and various E.U. leaders, a nation tired of having groupthink dictate its laws made its "Brexit," sending shockwaves across the more than two dozen member states. After the U.K. voted 52-48 percent to take back its national identity, the floodgates across Europe opened. Suddenly, people in France, Italy, and the Netherlands are demanding their own referendums. Like the British, they see their individual needs vanish in a multicultural pot, as the E.U. consolidates more power. After decades of watching the Union's courts and committees undermine British laws, the United Kingdom finally had enough.

Of course, it's no surprise that America's Left would intervene. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been bullying world leaders on how to run their countries for eight years. But surely, Andrew Roberts scolds in the Wall Street Journal, "This is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent 'to the back of the queue' (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave."

To the delight of conservatives like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the British people rejected the unwelcome and unsolicited advice of this White House. "The British people have indicated that they will no longer outsource their future to the E.U.," Cruz praised, "and prefer to chart their own path forward. The United States can learn from the referendum and attend to the issues of security, immigration and economic autonomy that drove this historic vote. In addition, we should treat the 'Brexit' as an opportunity to forge a closer partnership with our historic friend and ally..."

A teary Cameron, who stepped down in the wake of the seismic move for Europe, respected his country's decision but believes he shouldn't be the one overseeing the transition of a U.K. standing alone. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, the biggest driver behind the "Leave" movement, celebrated a new dawn for Britain (as some resorted to their mindless name-calling chants of "hater" and "bigot," "Fox and Friends" reported). In a nod to the oppressiveness of the Union, he cheered the opportunity for the nation to "pass our laws, set our taxes, entirely according to the needs of the U.K. economy..." More importantly, as terrorists march on the West and more than 350,000 people stream into his nation unchecked, he reassured voters that, "We can control our own borders, in a way that is not discriminatory but fair, and balanced and take the wind out of the sails of the extremists and those who would play politics of immigration. Above all, we can find our voice in the world again. A voice that is commensurate with the fifth biggest economy on earth -- powerful, liberal, humane, an extraordinary force for good in the world."

Here at home, Americans watched with fresh hope that they, too, can shrug off a radical and heavy-handed Obama administration, whose goal is to "fundamentally transform" our nation into just another liberal neighborhood in the global community. As Mark Davis pointed out in Townhall, "British voters trusted their instincts that several fundamental things in their nation were going very wrong, mostly at the behest of ideas that had subjugated their national identity. The same has happened in our own nation, and if we have the guts to vote accordingly in November, we can engineer our own exit, from years of inattention to the characteristics of a strong nation: borders that mean something, pride in who we are, and priorities that favor our own citizens." If anything, Americans should be encouraged. Britain's vote shows that resistance to globalism is still alive. And as much as the elites would like us to think countries can exist without borders, the people get it.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"Why Americans Should Celebrate the Brexit Vote"-Nile Gardiner / June 24, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/24/why-americans-should-celebrate-the-brexit-vote/
Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts. (Photo: Neil Hall/Newscom) "...The vote for Brexit (52 percent of Britons cast ballots to leave the EU) is a vote for sovereignty and self-determination. Britain will no longer be subject to European legislation, with Britain’s Parliament retaking control. British judges will no longer be overruled by the European Court of Justice, and British businesses will be liberated from mountains of EU regulations, which have undermined economic liberty. 
     Indeed, Brexit will result in a bonfire of red tape, freeing the city of London and enterprises across the nation from European Union diktat. And at last, Britain is free again to negotiate its own free trade deals, a huge boost to the world’s fifth largest economy.
     The United States should seize upon Brexit as a tremendous opportunity to sign an historic free trade agreement with the United Kingdom—a deal that would advance prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Brexit will also strengthen the Anglo-American special relationship, the most important bilateral partnership in the world.
     Britain outside the EU will be a stronger ally for the United States, from confronting Russian aggression in Eastern Europe to defeating the Islamist terror threat.
     Britain’s decision to leave the EU should be a cause for celebration here in America. Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty. A truly free and powerful Great Britain is good for Europe and the United States.

"How Congress Should Seize the Brexit Opportunity" - Sen. Mike Lee / June 25, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/25/how-congress-should-seize-the-brexit-opportunity/

#1632 (6/26) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Inviting Your Questions - UNANSWERED: SMOKE, MIRRORS AND GOD"

"Inviting Your Questions - UNANSWERED: SMOKE, MIRRORS AND GOD" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: May 20, 2016;

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29298

We all have questions about faith. What we need is a place where those questions are welcomed and answered with biblical truth.

In his very first BreakPoint commentary, which aired September 2, 1991, Chuck Colson observed that “our culture has stopped asking the big questions about the meaning and purpose of life.”  The same is true 25 years later, and at times it can even be true of the church. Feel-good sermons, songs, and activities cannot replace learning the grand narrative of God’s creation and redemption. Too many Christians are ill equipped to wrestle with life’s biggest questions, much less share their faith with others.

Recently, I spoke with my friend and Colson Fellow Nancy Fitzgerald, who wrote and teaches the outstanding biblical worldview curriculum, Anchorsaway to high school juniors and seniors. She shared a story with me that drives home the point.

Anchorsaway hosted a picnic to celebrate the achievements of the students who had spent a semester studying worldview and apologetics. As the students went inside for their last class, parents met with Nancy for a time of sharing about what the students had learned. Nancy related that she spent much time answering students’ questions. Questions like: “How do you know Christianity is not a hoax? What difference does it make to me daily that Jesus died and rose again? Is there any hope for me?”

When Nancy then asked the parents how many of them had similar questions, no one responded. In fact, no one moved. “It’s okay to have questions,” Nancy told them. “Honestly, how many of you have similar questions?” Slowly, the hands begin to rise.

One mom said, “I didn’t know we could ask questions; I was taught not to.” Another said, “I didn’t know there were answers to such questions. I have thought about that stuff but never knew anyone who could answer them.”

As a teacher myself, it saddens me to think that Christians don’t know that it’s perfectly okay to ask hard questions.  In fact, it’s critical! What’s more, the church should be the best place to ask those questions.

As Nancy told those parents, and I’m excited to tell you, Nancy’s written a new small group study aimed specifically at adults who have the same kinds of questions the teens studied in the Anchorsaway class.  This new study is called “Unanswered: Smoke, Mirrors and God,” and provides a way for you to both ask and find biblical answers to the questions we have about God, Jesus, ourselves, and the big questions of life. It’s an excellent adult small group study with an accompanying discussion guide and DVD. Not only will it help you get some honest answers, but you’ll also learn how to be a better responder to those who have questions. It will give you confidence in knowing the truth of your faith.

To not take people’s questions seriously is to not take them seriously. We risk leaving the impression that questioning is sinful or that the answers don’t really exist. Neither is true, and “Unanswered” is a perfect way to offer your friends and neighbors in your church and community a safe place to ask the big questions and receive honest answers.

So why not form a study group using “Unanswered: Smoke, Mirrors and God.” The book, study guide, and DVD are easy to use, do not speak in Christian­ese and, frankly, can be life changing. It can be used with seekers, families, cell groups in the church and with women’s, men’s and student small group studies.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
Unanswered: Smoke, Mirrors and God: study series-website - http://store.anchorsaway.org/unanswered/

Anchorsaway-website - http://anchorsaway.org/

#1631 (6/25) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Planned Parenthood Caught Engaging in $28 Million in Medicaid Fraud Loses Bid to Stop Lawsuit"

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD CAUGHT ENGAGING IN $28 MILLION IN MEDICAID FRAUD LOES BID TO STOP LAWSUIT" - Steven Ertelt, June 23, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/23/planned-parenthood-caught-engaging-in-28-million-in-medicaid-fraud-loses-bid-to-stop-lawsuit/[AS I SEE IT: Planned Parenthood already gets almost a half BILLION of our tax dollars each year and it still has need to defraud the  government for more! When will Americans wake up to how they are being ripped off by this dispenser of death! - Stan]

 Just one Planned Parenthood affiliate in Iowa allegedly committed $28 million in medicaid fraud. And now a federal appeals court has ruled that it can’t stop the lawsuit a former Planned Parenthood clinic director filed against it.

Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Sue Thayer filed the lawsuit against the abortion giant’s Iowa affiliate accusing it of submitting “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursements” to Medicaid and failing to meet acceptable standards of medical practice. Alliance Defending Freedom filed the suit for Thayer in March 2011. The lawsuit claims that Planned Parenthood’s Iowa affiliate submitted “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursements” to Medicaid and failed to meet acceptable standards of medical practice.

Thayer, former manager of Planned Parenthood’s Storm Lake and LeMars clinics, sued under both the federal and Iowa False Claims acts. The suit alleges that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud from 2002 to 2009 by improperly seeking reimbursements from Iowa Medicaid Enterprise and the Iowa Family Planning Network for products and services not legally reimbursable by those programs.

“During my last years working at Planned Parenthood, it became increasingly clear to me that not all of their policies and protocols were completely legal and ethical.  After much thought, I contacted the Alliance Defending Freedom,” Thayer said about the lawsuit. “I believe that it is an important piece in the nationwide effort to shed light on the darkness and deception surrounding America’s largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood.”

The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, an affiliate now known as Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, filed nearly one-half million false claims with Medicaid from which Planned Parenthood received and retained nearly $28 million. Planned Parenthood tried to dismiss the lawsuit, but the abortion company’s motion to dismiss was largely unsuccessful, as the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled in Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland that two of the three claims may go forward.

ADF attorney Steve Aden told LifeNews.com yesterday: “Planned Parenthood views women as profit centers, not patients. Taxpayers deserve to know that Planned Parenthood is acting illegally, not only by wrongfully submitting claims to Medicaid for reimbursement, but also by failing to protect the health of the women it purports to serve. Our tax dollars should fund the thousands of trusted, local public health clinics across America, not the barbaric acts of this billion-dollar corporation.”

The lawsuit explains that, to enhance revenues, Planned Parenthood implemented a “C-Mail” program that automatically mailed a year’s supply of birth control pills to women who had only been seen once at a Planned Parenthood clinic and usually by personnel who were not qualified health care professionals. After that, Planned Parenthood mailed thousands of unrequested birth control pills to those clients.

Planned Parenthood’s cost for a 28-day supply of birth control pills mailed to clients was $2.98, but the Medicaid reimbursement Planned Parenthood received for the pills was $26.32. In some cases, the Postal Service returned the pills to Planned Parenthood. Instead of crediting Medicaid or destroying the returned pills, Planned Parenthood resold the same pills and billed Medicaid twice for the same pills. The suit also claims that Planned Parenthood coerced “voluntary donations” for services and then billed Medicaid for them.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1630 (6/24) "GOP Recoils At Gun Stunt"

"GOP RECOILS AT GUN STUNT" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 23, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F34&f=WU16F12
-------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The media has been calling last night's Democratic sit-in a "revolt." And people were revolted all right. 

A little over a week after the worst U.S. terror attack since 9/11, House Democrats seem intent on helping radical Islam carry out another one. When liberals spend hours derailing House business to force a debate on gun control, they aren't preventing another massacre like Orlando's. They're creating the division -- and diversion -- radical Islamists need to plot another assault.

House Democrats should be angry about what happened to 49 innocent Americans. So should Republicans. But their outrage shouldn't be directed at each other or gun policy -- it should be directed at our enemies. Unfortunately for our nation, the president's party doesn't grasp who that enemy is. As Jim Geraghty pointed out in National Review, "Two and a half years after his 'JV' comment, there's painfully little evidence that Obama understands any of this better than he did then. How many more of our citizens must die before he gets it?" Instead, they're wasting precious legislative time blaming Christians or assault rifles for the shooting, while the real crisis gets worse. As a frustrated Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) called out, pointing at the pictures of the Orlando victims, "Radical Islam killed these people!"

Hate is the weapon here -- guns are just an instrument of it. And yet, in this desperate attempt to score political points, House Democrats are willing to put American lives at risk while they lie about their real agenda. They want a debate on guns instead of the radicals killing us! And guess who that benefits? The terrorists. Every minute the House wastes talking about AR-15s or intolerance towards Muslims is a minute Congress could be spending overhauling our homeland security policy. Right now, more than a half million foreign nationals are living here on expired visas, unvetted refugees are streaming through our borders, and what's the Left's solution? Gumming up the process for an agenda that will only prevent honest Americans from protecting themselves.

Criminals won't be deterred by gun laws -- any more than they're deterred by any law. This is all just part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to ignore what really happened in Florida and turn it into an opportunity to talk about people who believe in God and guns. In the meantime, thousands of military veterans were left hanging, waiting for members to finish VA and Financial Services bills that were shoved aside for the Democrats' selfish PR. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt," Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) argued. "This is not about a solution to a problem. This is about trying to get attention." And Democrats are not above exploiting 49 Americans' deaths to do it. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) insisted Ryan's comments were "disrespectful to the nation."

No, what's disrespectful is distracting from the real threat while you peddle a completely unrelated agenda. Now, while ISIS celebrates, Congress is too busy fighting with itself to unite behind a plan to defeat the enemy. No wonder radical Muslims feel empowered. Liberals are creating the diversion for them! And with some exceptions, Republicans are facilitating it. Despite controlling the floor, the GOP is letting Democrats control the conversation.

As the president's party sits and spins, it's time for the GOP to acknowledge the truth that Democrats won't: America is at war with radical Islam. The threat is not citizens who own guns or those who believe in God and biblical morality. And unless the Left calls curtains on its political theater and starts caring more about our country than their campaigns, Orlando will be just the second act in an ongoing tragedy that will play out across America.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#1629 (6/23) "The Outrageous Attack on Conservative Christians After the Orlando Massacre"

"THE OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS AFTER THE ORLANDO MASSACRE" - Michael Brown Michael Brown |Jun 20, 2016;

 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/06/20/the-outrageous-attack-on-conservative-christians-after-the-orlando-massacre-n2180828

 
In the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, leftist voices are not only blaming conservative Christians for the tragedy, they are now calling on Christians to renounce their sacred beliefs and historic convictions, as if holding to a biblical definition of marriage leads to mass murder. This is not only ridiculous and reprehensible. It is also logically absurd.

Consider these alternative scenarios.
     Let’s say that for years, gay activists vilified conservative Christians in the ugliest ways, not only calling us bigots and hypocrites and equating us with Hitler, the Nazis, the Taliban, and ISIS, but also saying that we deserve to die, sending us death threats, posting death wishes on social media, and holding up posters at rallies with lines like, “Throw them to the lions!” (For the record, this is not hypothetical. I can document every word of this in sickening detail.)
     Then, one Sunday morning, a radical Muslim of Iraqi descent barges into a church service and kills 49 worshipers, injuring 53 others before he is killed. Are the gay activists to blame or is the radical Muslim to blame? Obviously, the radical Muslim. Are the gay activists complicit? Of course not, despite their hatred and animosity.
     What if conservative Christians turned to gay activists and said, “Can’t you see the damage your words have done? Can’t you see that your death threats helped produce this toxic, murderous environment? It’s time that you renounce your homosexuality!” What would the reaction be from the gay community? One can only imagine.

Now let’s change the scenario a little.
     This time, it’s outspoken atheists who have been vilifying conservative Christians, mocking their intelligence, belittling their God, scorning their Scriptures, and even claiming that is it child abuse for Christian parents to be able to teach the tenets of their faith to their own children. (This, of course, has been happening for years as well.) After years of abusive atheistic comments, the radical Muslim barges into that Sunday church service and carries out his massacre. Are the atheists to blame? Are they complicit in the attack? Do they bear some of the responsibility? Of course not.
     And could conservative Christians turn around and say to them, “Look at the damage you’ve done. It’s time you renounce your atheism and embrace Christianity”? Obviously not.

Yet gay activists and their allies on the left are not only blaming Christians for the Orlando tragedy, they are telling us it’s time to change our beliefs. How utterly and completely absurd.
The fact is, my parallel scenarios were not even true parallels, since conservative Christians have not been engaging in hate speech against gays and lesbians. (Note to the LGBT community: Just because you call something hateful doesn’t make it hateful.)

We have not been calling for their murder (God forbid!), and even the miniscule, fringe minority, of professing Christians who call for the death penalty for practicing homosexuals do not call for their murder. (Note also that, as Christians, we oppose adultery, fornication, polygamy, and polyamory, but we don’t hate adulterers, fornicators, polygamists, or polyamorists, nor do we call for their death.)

We have simply said that God designed men for women and women for men, that children deserve a mother and father, that homosexual practice is sinful, that a teenage boy shouldn’t be playing on the girls’ sports teams and sharing their locker rooms and shower stalls, and that a biological male is not a woman.

There is no hatred in these positions, no vilification of fellow-human beings, no calls for violence, no death threats or death wishes. Instead, there is a proclamation that all of us have sinned against God, that all of us are fallen and flawed to the very core of our beings, that all of us deserve death, and that, through Jesus, God wants to have mercy on all. In a million years, no one could draw a logical or moral line between this message and the cold-blooded murder of gays and lesbians. Not in a million years.

What has happened is that Christians have pushed back against laws that we feel are unjust or unhelpful, especially laws that endanger our most fundamental national freedoms or that could potentially endanger our children.

In response, leftist activists have called us haters and bigots and worse. But that is simply their perception. (I have documented this as well, demonstrating how gay websites have bashed Christian rallies and put ugly words on the mouths of the speakers, whereas in reality not a single speaker engaged in anything resembling hate speech.)

So, we simply stand up for marriage and family and for freedoms of religion, conscience, and speech in response to a radical LGBT agenda to reshape our nation, and our opponents attack us in the most vile and even hysterical tone, equating us with ISIS and the like. In other words, the so-called toxic environment which conservative Christians have allegedly created is largely the product of the interpretation put on our words by gay activists and their allies.The toxicity is not coming from us, and we bear no more responsibility for the actions of a Muslim terrorist in Orlando than we bear for a Muslim terrorist in Falluja.

But there’s one more thing that needs to be addressed.
     Followers of Jesus do not pick and choose what we believe. As Augustine once commented, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”
     It’s not up to us to reinterpret a biblical truth because society doesn’t like it or because it’s considered out of fashion. It’s not up to us to tell the Creator what’s best for His creation or tell the Ruler of the universe how things on earth should go, nor is it our job to lecture the Judge of the world about justice.
     And when it comes to homosexual practice, despite many attempts to rewrite the Bible, the verdict remains the same: 1) there is not a single positive reference to homosexual practice in the Bible; 2) every scriptural reference to homosexual practice is decidedly negative (in the strongest of terms); 3) marriage is established as the lifelong union of one man and woman; 4) forgiveness and mercy are offered to all, homosexual and heterosexual alike.

Jonah Goldberg recently asked, “Why Can’t the Left Distinguish Conservative Christians from Islamic Terrorists?” In my opinion, the answer is willful ignorance. The leftists have embraced lies about conservative Christians for many years now and they are simply building on the foundation of those lies. Believers in Jesus (and other conservatives) better prepare well for the coming storm.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is The Grace Controversy.

"A Christian Message to LGBT Americans" - Michael Brown Michael Brown:Jun 14,2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/06/14/a-christian-message-to-lgbt-americans-n2177839
"Blaming Christians for Orlando? - THE MEDIA HITS ROCK BOTTOM" - By: Eric Metaxas, Breakpoint.org: June 23, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29473

#1628 (6/22) "Evangelical Angst - OH WE OF LITTLE FAITH"

"Evangelical Angst - OH WE OF LITTLE FAITH" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: June 13, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29403

We Evangelicals find ourselves in what could fairly be called a “difficult” cultural moment. Here’s a hint about our response: Hand-wringing isn’t the answer.

A recent article on Fox News website was entitled “A look at white Evangelical angst over declining clout.” I don’t know about you, but there were at least three words in that headline that gave me pause, and that was even before I read the article.

The first was “white.” That raises the important question of whether white Evangelicals are reacting to the implications of the cultural moment in ways different from African-American, Latino, and Asian-American Evangelicals. This is a discussion I think all Evangelicals need to have, and frankly, apart from raising the question, I cannot adequately explore it in this single commentary.

But there are two other words from that headline that I can begin to address in our remaining time today: “angst” and “clout.” The article, which is in the form of a Q&A, begins by recounting facts that regular BreakPoint listeners are already familiar with: the decline in the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Christians and the increasing willingness of previously nominal Christians, especially in the “Bible Belt,” to say that they have no religious affiliation. It also cites “the fallout from the spread of LGBT rights and the growth of secularism.”

While I obviously share these concerns, as should you, our response should have nothing do with either “angst” or the loss of “clout.” “Angst” comes from the German word associated with the state of being “afraid, anxious, or alarmed.” In English it’s used to describe a “feeling of acute but vague anxiety or apprehension.” I run into this kind of angst all the time, especially on social media among my evangelical friends. Often, what I encounter goes beyond proper concern about cultural trends, giving way to a sense of hopelessness, fear, and more than a little anger. Evangelicals are beginning to see ourselves as a beleaguered minority.And it would be silly to deny that what is driving at least some of these feelings is the loss of cultural and political influence—in other words, clout—especially in this election year.

What’s lost in all the angst, and frankly, in much of our cultural discourse, is perspective. We need to remember that God’s timing is not ours. And we know, or at least we should know, that God’s purposes will always unfold in human history, but always in His time, not ours. He is not bound by news or election cycles.

Paul told the Galatians that God sent his Son when the fullness of time had come. He didn’t have to tell them that God alone had determined when the time was full. And remember, that “time” didn’t exactly look promising: His ancient people were subjects of pagan oppressors and lived far from the centers of influence. Furthermore, the path He chose to restore all things to Himself was, as we know, not what His people were expecting or even wanted.

Of course, with hindsight we know they were mistaken. Will people looking back on us think the same thing? Will they ask about us “How did they miss the things God was doing in their midst—the things that should have given them peace and assurance in the midst of trying times?”
Well, my prayer is that we won’t. We face real challenges, and we need to be clear and wise about how we address them, especially when it comes to preparing future generations. And yet, all that we do must rest in and be shaped by the certainty that Christ has risen from the dead and that the restoration of all things will happen.

A recent interviewer, upon hearing me say that, said, “Well, you’re an optimist.” Not at all. I have no intention of optimistically downplaying the seriousness of the cultural moment. Rather, as Peter called us to in his epistle, I want to be defined by the hope that Christ will fulfill His word, even if we don’t know how or when. We don’t need to. We only need to, as Chuck Colson liked to say, “stay at our posts and do our duty.” The rest is up to God.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Christians hope in Christ, not politics or government. In the midst of challenges in our culture and our nation, Chuck Colson would often say that our salvation doesn't come through political elections, but through our dependence and reliance on Christ. He is the one who restores all things.
Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel- Russell Moore | B&H Publishing Group | August 2015
Restoring All Things: God's Audacious Plan to Change the World Through Everyday People
- John Stonestreet, Warren Smith | Baker Books | May 2015

#1627 (6/21) "Logic-Free Zone"

"LOGIC-FREE ZONE" - Cal Thomas: Jun 21, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2016/06/21/logicfree-zone-n2181249
--------------------------------------------
 
---------------------------------------------
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) recently disclosed that a congressional investigation has found at least 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list.
In other news, President Obama used a memorial service for the victims of the Orlando massacre to advocate for more gun control laws. Anyone else see a contradiction in these two items?

Interviewers frequently ask me why I don't favor more gun control laws. My response: Name one law that deters someone intent on breaking the law. Murder has been prohibited since the beginning of civilization, but people still murder. One might as well outlaw human nature.

Only those predisposed to obey laws will obey them. Florida prohibits openly carrying firearms and many places advertise "gun-free zones," which can be an open invitation to anyone intent on mass murder. The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, reportedly visited Pulse nightclub several times before breaking its gun-free zone policy. That night, he entered the club with an assault rifle and entered into a gun battle with the club's security guard, an off-duty police officer. He then retreated to a bathroom, taking hostages. Had Mateen cased the place? Did he know the guard would be the only one standing in his way? It would appear so.

Despite the president's claim to the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that even a small number of armed patrons might have limited the number of fatalities. And had the shooter known he would encounter armed patrons perhaps he might not have chosen that particular club as his target.

More gun laws are not the answer. Britain has some of the toughest gun laws in the world, but that did not stop a deranged man from shooting and stabbing to death Labour MP Jo Cox.

Omar Mateen was a radical Muslim who pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Why do so many of us find it hard to accept that Islamists want to kill us as part of a strategy to create a worldwide caliphate? And why is the president adopting their language by using the term ISIL, which stands for the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant," a larger area of the Middle East that includes Lebanon, Jordan and Syria? The president uses their terminology, but refuses to say "Islamic terrorism," while continuing to allow thousands of Syrian refugees into America when authorities say there are so many that they can't conduct proper background checks.

The answer to the first question is political correctness. The owner of the gun store where Mateen purchased his rifle says he also asked about body armor. When Mateen left the store, someone contacted the FBI. The follow-up, however, proved insufficient.

James Kallstrom, a former FBI assistant director, recently spoke with Megyn Kelly on her Fox News show. Kallstrom told Kelly that orders have come down from the White House that the bureau cannot investigate 'anything to do with Muslims' and agents are "petrified" of losing their jobs if they do. Islamists could not have a better friend in the White House had they put one of their own there.

The media and liberal activists have returned to their default positions, of course. New York Times columnist Charles Blow blames conservative Christians and their biblical doctrines on marriage, sexuality, even evolution for fomenting "hate" against LGBT people, a hate that, supposedly, propelled Mateen toward mass homicide.

Truth is often a casualty in politics, but in a presidential election year it has become a mass casualty.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Gun Control Farce" - Thomas Sowell:Jun 21, 2016;
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/06/21/the-gun-control-farce-n2181117
"...Despite hundreds of thousands of times a year when Americans use firearms defensively, none of those incidents is likely to be reported in the mainstream media, even when lives are saved as a result. But one accidental firearm death in a home will be broadcast and rebroadcast from coast to coast. Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable? .."

#1626 (6/20) "7 Ways US Can Prevent Another Orlando Attack"

"7 WAYS US CAN PREVENT ANOTHER ORLANDO ATTACK" - Bridget Mudd / June 17, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/17/7-ways-us-can-prevent-another-orlando-attack/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpjMllqRmpaamd4TURjMCIsInQiOiJYSFZxSXMwWlN2UnI1S3NobTc2dThCdm4wVzhlZUpZKzZXUVZQUUtZOU1jU010QWxSVEZkaVNOVW5hN1BOUUszcFB6bEJQRm1HY2NNS2xUdCszanZmcVJzaFZvSDRPMWV3UVkrVXlFMTRiMD0ifQ%3D%3D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the Obama administration has been quick to blame gun control laws. This is because the administration refuses to admit its policies to defeat the Islamic State have failed. Islamist terror attacks within the U.S. have dramatically increased within the past year—with Orlando being the 22nd instance of Islamist terrorism in the U.S. since 2015. This is out of 86 plots since 2001.

Gun control will not stop this rise in Islamist terror attacks, and the president is wrong to suggest so. To stop these attacks and defeat radical Islamism, the U.S. needs to defend the U.S. homeland and combat terrorism abroad. We must maintain essential counterterrorism tools to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies find and stop terrorists before they attack.

Here are seven policies that will help prevent another Orlando:

     1. Combat Terrorism Abroad and Deny ISIS Territorial Gains - So long as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, maintains territory in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be a persistent terror threat. Rolling back—and defeating—ISIS requires a global approach in which the U.S. leads a multipronged, multination effort that seeks to deny ISIS the ability to hold territory. This will disrupt its recruitment of foreign fighters, and will counter its destructive ideology.
     One part of the solution must be military. ISIS derives much of its cachet and legitimacy from its success. Driving ISIS from its conquered territories will undermine the group’s legitimacy in the eyes of aspiring jihadists, thereby hurting its ability to recruit.

2. Shut Down the Foreign Fighter Pipeline - In order to defeat terrorism abroad, the U.S. must lead an international effort to deny ISIS territorial gains and shut down the foreign fighter pipeline. While military victory would undermine ISIS’ legitimacy, the U.S. must also improve intelligence capabilities to identify potential recruits and preempt Islamist violence.
   This requires hard intelligence work and even closer coordination between countries to identify suspicious travel. This includes pushing allies to take greater intelligence and security measures that reflect the global nature of the threat.The U.S. should make greater use of state and local law enforcement, both as intelligence sources and as intelligence users.

3. Ensure That the FBI Regularly Shares Information - The FBI must share information with state and local law enforcement—treating state and local partners as critical actors in the fight against terrorism. State, local, and private sector partners must send and receive timely information from the FBI. Despite the lessons of 9/11 and other terrorist plots, the culture of the FBI continues to resist sharing information with state and local law enforcement.

4. Expand Active Shooter Threat Training Across the Country - Mass shootings in busy areas will always be a threat given America’s free society. Since state and local law enforcement officers will be the first to respond, training for active shooter events should be expanded through existing programs such as the Active Shooter Threat Training Program and corresponding instructor training program.

5. Community Outreach Remains a Vital Tool - The U.S. should facilitate strong community outreach and policing. Such capabilities are key to building trust in local communities, especially in high risk areas. If the U.S. is to thwart Islamist terrorist attacks successfully, it must do so by putting effective community outreach operations at the tip of the spear.

6. Maintain Essential Counterterrorism Tools - upport for important investigative tools is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and should be allowed to continue.

7. Counter Islamist Ideology- The U.S. needs a strong, proactive counterterrorism policy in order to prevent future terrorist attacks like Orlando. We cannot afford to play politics when national security is at stake. The U.S. must do more both at home and abroad in order to uproot and defeat Islamist terrorism.

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

Bridget Mudd is a research assistant in the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

#1625 (6/19) SUNDAY SPECIAL - Happy Father's Day! / "Man Cubs Need Their Fathers - KIPLING’S JUNGLE BOOKS"

"Man Cubs Need Their Fathers - KIPLING’S JUNGLE BOOKS - By: Eric Metaxas|Breakpoint.org: 6/17/16;

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29435

With Father's Day coming up, let’s reflect on the barest of necessities: kids having a dad in their lives.

One of the biggest worldwide hits of the summer—or any summer, for that matter—is The Jungle Book, Disney’s charming new interpretation of the Kipling classic. Children are eating up this film. But it’s not surprising that the intelligentsia, which once called the book a celebration of British imperialism, are now calling it racist garbage, not to mention politically incorrect. 

Ironically, in their rush to condemn The Jungle Book, the critics are missing Kipling’s most politically incorrect message of all: That boys need their fathers, and need them desperately.
It’s a message we should pay particular attention to on Father’s Day, [which is today.]

As Jody Bottum writes in The Federalist, Kipling’s writings for children “derive from his intense feeling of being an abandoned child, sent home from India to live in a boarding school at age five.” Bottum notes, “The subtext of nearly every one of his children’s stories is a boy’s desperate need for a father.” Kipling himself is “so eager for a father that he cannot write about a boy without casting every older male in a father role.”

For example, in The Jungle Books, the story of an orphaned man-cub named Mowglie, we have Baloo the bear, whom Bottom calls a “kindly but learned” father figure. Bagheera, the panther, is another father figure, while the wolf Akela “is father as clan lawgiver.” The python Kaa is “father as source of ancient memory and possessor of mysterious powers.”

We see the same phenomenon at work in another Kipling novel about a fatherless boy, titled Kim. Bottum notes that father figures in this tale include “Mahbub Ali, a Pashtun horse trader, [who] becomes the mature figure of worldliness for the boy, an elderly Tibetan Lama becomes the father of his spiritual unworldliness,” Bottum writes, while “a British officer . . . becomes the father figure who calls the boy to a high political purpose.”

We see echoes and evidence of this need for fathers in modern life. It seems that boys don’t merely feel abandoned when their fathers are out of the picture: All the available evidence reveals that both boys and girls don’t do as well as kids who have a loving father providing a steady presence in their lives.

For instance, family researcher Patrick Fagin of the Heritage Institute notes that “teenagers without a dad around are almost twice as likely to be depressed as teenagers from an intact family.” “They are more than four times as likely to be expelled from school,” and “three times as likely to repeat a grade,” as well as abuse drugs and alcohol. Even more depressing is the fact that kids without dads “are also more likely to have sex before they are married—setting the stage for yet another fatherless generation.”

All of this shows that for dads, spending time with their kids, playing with them, teaching them right from wrong, and disciplining them, is the most important work any man can do.

As for the movie, well, as charming as it is, Disney’s writers don’t seem to recognize what Kipling was doing with the Mowgli stories. For instance, they cast Scarlett Johansson as the python, Kaa, a pretty piece of reverse-sexism.  Bagheera the panther is the only character left to truly represent a father.

If you decide to see The Jungle Book with your own man-cubs, then give them a copy of Kipling’s The Jungle Books to read afterward—or read it to them yourself. They’re tremendously entertaining stories and poems. And be sure to point out to them what Kipling was saying with his children’s books: That boys (and girls) need their fathers, and without them, they are truly lost.

Oh, and to all you dads out there, have a very happy Father's Day.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As Eric suggested, if you're taking your children to see The Jungle Book, point out the obvious in Kipling's fictional story--children need their fathers in their lives. For resources on why fathers are important, check out the links below.
"Life With -- and Without – Father" - Rebecca Hagelin | Heritage.org | June 13, 2016;
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/06/life-with-and-without-father
"Why Fathers Matter" - Heritage Foundation | familyfacts.org; http://familyfacts.org/briefs/25/why-fathers-matter
"A Child’s Search For His Father Transcends ‘Jungle Book’s’ Racism" - Joseph Bottum | The Federalist | May 3, 2016; http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/03/a-childs-search-for-his-father-transcends-jungle-books-racism/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Honor Your Father" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 17, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16F29&f=WU16F10
"A Father's Prayer" - By Jim DeMint, Washington Times, June 15, 2016; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/power-of-prayer-a-fathers-prayer/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpZeU1qUmlaREZpWlRkbCIsInQiOiJPOHRIRXhcLytTcXQ0Nis4OG02ZENZWG9XdXhoRGFlYXdqcVVNWDR0ZHpZcWVYS3dFNHR5a3FWWW1jRUpIVXljNDVPWjNYTUdxQWZ6eENST0JSMDVtY0lCMTZQSjZKTXhpNWFjeTZoampITjA9In0%3D

#1624 (6/18) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Abortion is Considered a Woman’s Issue But, on Father’s Day, Remember Fathers are Victims Too"

"ABORTION IS CONSIDERED A WOMAN'S ISSUE BUT, ON FATHER'S DAY, REMEMBER FATHER'S ARE VICTIMS TOO" - Paul Stark, June 16, 2016|

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/16/abortion-is-considered-a-womans-issue-but-on-fathers-day-remember-they-are-victims-too/

       Fathers will be honored this Sunday, as they should be. Abortion is often called a women’s issue, but here are three ways that it intersects with fatherhood.

(1) The importance of supportive fathers. A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction found that pregnant women who felt they lacked support from the child’s father were more likely to choose abortion. A 2004 study in Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American women having abortions said they felt pressured by others to abort. Other studies and evidence confirm that fathers often play a central role in determining pregnancy outcomes.

Men who help conceive a baby must support (emotionally and in whatever other ways) both mother and child. When they don’t, abortion is more likely, and women and children suffer (whether abortion is chosen or not).

(2) The effect of abortion on fathers. Abortion can detrimentally affect men just as it can women. Fathers may experience grief, guilt, anger, depression and other psychological consequences following abortion. Books like “Men and Abortion: A Path to Healing,” “Redeeming a Father’s Heart” and “Men and Abortion: Losses, Lessons and Love” have explored this issue.

A 2000 Canadian study of couples having first-trimester abortions concluded that “being involved in a first-trimester abortion can be highly distressing for both women and men.”

Still, the tragedy of “lost fatherhood” has largely been unstudied and ignored. It shouldn’t be.

(3) Speaking out. Pro-choice advocates like to say that only women can speak about abortion, and many men are silent or (if they are pro-life, but strangely not if they are pro-choice) their opinions are disregarded. But that doesn’t make any sense.

The pro-life (or any other) position must be considered on its merits, not dismissed because of some characteristic of a person advancing that position. Many, many women, after all, make the very same pro-life case. Men have an obligation to graciously speak the truth and to defend the lives of those who cannot defend themselves.

Father’s Day recognizes that fathers play an essential role in the lives of their children. They are also essential to restoring a culture of life in which all human beings, especially the youngest and most vulnerable, are respected and protected.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews.com Note: Paul Stark is a member of the staff of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a statewide pro-life group.

# 1623 (6/17) "After Orlando, We Must Stop Teaching American Children to Hate America"

"AFTER ORLANDO, WE MUST STOP TEACHING OUR KIDS TO HATE AMERICA" - Mike Gonzalez / June 15, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/15/after-orlando-we-must-stop-teaching-american-children-to-hate-america/

Everybody, but especially young men, needs to feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves, a sense that we’re all in this together. (Photo: Keith Lane/TNS/Newscom)

Despite signs everywhere that the Orlando massacre has failed to bring the country together, there seems to be a growing consensus on at least one point—considering a return to E Pluribus Unum. This is a national debate that conservatives have long demanded and should relish having.
Sure, some are recalling the motto only to rebuke Donald Trump’s call for a suspension of immigration from Muslim nations. But that shouldn’t matter to conservatives, who should concentrate now on forcing the reopening of this discussion.

So, when Hillary Clinton says, “E Pluribus Unum, One—Out of Many, One—has seen us through the darkest chapters of our history,” as she did at her first major speech after Orlando, conservatives should say, bring it on. Yes, let’s by all means return to that goal. Why did we ever abandon it in the first place?

Let’s debate how an American like Omar Mateen, born in Queens, New York and raised in Fort Pierce, Florida can turn into a terrorist bent on executing his compatriots. How does he grow up cheering the 9/11 attack in high school, thinking that women ought not to drive and swearing allegiance to the Islamic State?

Everybody, but especially young men, needs to feel like they’re part of something bigger than themselves, a sense that we’re all in this together. If we as a society fail to give citizens national pride, we can be sure that some outside force will come along and do it.

The Founders knew that the constitutional republic they were crafting required a single nation with one national identity smelted out of different ethnicities. Right away, in 1776 in fact, they came up with the concept of E Pluribus Unum.

To instill the new creed into the immigrants already flocking to America, they set an educational system that would create a nation with one national identity. Starting in the early 1800s with the Common Schools and continuing later through the Ellis Island period, American schools Americanized new comers. As historian Mark Edward DeForrest put it, the Common Schools had, "a large role in assimilating and educating the offspring of the immigrants then moving into the United States from Europe. The schools did not simply educate students in the basics of the English language or the Three Rs. Rather, the schools were actively involved in promoting the values and beliefs that were considered part and parcel of the American experience." Schools taught that being an American required a belief in individual liberty and that rights are granted to us by virtue of our existence, not through government action. These principles united all people who came to this country in deeply rooted patriotism.

For the past three decades, for reasons that will also require analysis (though at a later date), we have been doing exactly the opposite. The new model, exemplified by the bestselling historian Howard Zinn, is to present America as a spectacular experiment in oppression. Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” set the stage for the grievance mongering that passes for history classes today, and is still widely used. It has sold over two million copies since it was first published in 1980 and continues to sell over 100,000 copies a year because it is required reading at many of our high schools and colleges. That’s a lot of young minds.

This is how Zinn described the Founding:"Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership."

And our educational authorities are doubling down today—even in the face of danger. The College Board’s leftist curriculum framework for Advanced Placement U.S. History—the courses that our best students take in high school—denigrates the Founders’ assimilationist ethos and presses students “to think beyond national histories” and patriotic attachments. The just released A.P. European History curriculum is no better. It presents religion only as an instrument of power, minimizes the evil of communism and omits the importance of liberty.

As for the K-12 curriculum on the verge of being approved in the largest state in the Union, California, it is a blue print for redrawing America further still along multicultural lines. The assimilation required to attain E Pluribus Unum is “questionable by today’s standards that generally embrace having a plurality of experiences in the country.” Assimilation, it adds, was the product of a mixture of “Social Darwinism, laissez-faire economics, as well as the religious reformism associated with the ideal of the Social Gospel.”

This is what is being taught to students, like Mateen once was, every day in our schools. So, yes, by all means, let’s have a discussion on why we should indoctrinate young minds in a way no society has ever done, why we should teach our young to “unlike” America.

Is this the approach we want to have, especially at a time when a force like ISIS will only be too glad to fill the patriotic vacuum, or should we teach again that America is an exceptionally free and prosperous nation that requires love and affection and constant attention?

The author Sebastian Junger, speaking at Heritage this week about his new book, “Tribe,” reminded his audience that as bad as the Nazi Blitz on London was, its survivors missed afterward the sense of national pride they had felt while pitching in together.

The fact that the Orlando massacre has failed miserably to be a bond for national unity, but has only exposed our fissures, should be a mighty sign of how divided we are. This debate is well overdue.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush Administration first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of, "A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans". 

#1622 (6/16) "Our Enemy Is Political Islam, Not Each Other"

"OUR ENEMY IS POLITICAL ISLAM, NOT EACH OTHER" - Jim DeMint / June 15, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/15/our-enemy-is-political-islam-not-each-other/ [AS I SEE IT: As the title of this article declares, America is at war with the political aspects of Islam, not the religious. There is a distinction, though we also cannot be blind to the fact that the fundamental teachings of Islam - the religion - feed the political objectives of Islam - a worldwide Islamic state . - Stan] 

We know what inspired this crime: Islamist terrorism, fueled by propaganda from ISIS. (Photo: Balkis Press/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Around 2 a.m. Sunday morning, a 29-year-old man named Omar Mateen walked into a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and killed 49 people, wounding 53 more. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Mateen was an American-born Muslim and the son of Afghan immigrants.
In the following days, we’ve seen the usual cottage industry of controversy spring up around the atrocity: a wealth of commentary from politicians and pundits, and even the president, about whose political enemy is really to blame.

The first thing we should do is leave partisan politics aside. We know what inspired this crime: Islamist terrorism, fueled by propaganda from ISIS and other murderous groups in the Middle East. Mateen even called 911 to publicly pledge allegiance to ISIS. America’s fight is against political Islam.

Also, apart from being tasteless in the wake of a tragedy, political goalkeeping won’t help determine if there were any gaps in our intelligence and law enforcement networks that let such a despicable killer carry out his plans.

Hindsight is 20/20, but so far, we know a few things: A former coworker at a GS4 Security, a company which once employed Mateen, claims that Mateen made bigoted remarks about race and sexuality, spoke of committing violent acts, and harassed him with floods of text messages. He also claims that these warnings were ignored because of political correctness.

We also know that Mateen was actually once on a terrorist watch list, then taken off of it. The FBI interviewed him twice, in 2013 and 2014, because of his stated sympathies with Islamist extremists and contacts with an American who later died in a suicide bombing in Syria. We know that he took trips to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and 2012, although we don’t know what he was doing there.

It is impossible to predict every individual’s actions. But amidst the political back and forth in the coming days, I hope our leaders will keep their eye on the ball, and ask how we can improve our response to Islamist extremism at home and abroad, and the murderous people it has often inspired.

Our capability to tackle potential terrorists before they strike is all the more important because their numbers appear to be growing, not diminishing. As national security expert James Carafano reports:"In the U.S. the number and frequency of Islamist plots has been growing. Before Orlando, the U.S. alone has been the target of at least 85 Islamist-related terrorist plots since Sept. 11, 2001. The attack in Orlando is the 22nd plot since 2015. To put this increase in perspective, more than a quarter of domestic terror plots in the U.S. since 2001 have occurred in the last 18 months.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the numbers show that the incidence of terrorist plots is now increasing 15 years after the worst one we’ve ever faced. Whatever our government is doing, it hasn’t lessened the threat of Islamist extremism, whether at home or abroad. Just look to the tragic bloodshed in France at the Charlie Hebdo office and at the Bataclan Theater last year. The Heritage Foundation has long warned that the administration’s counterterrorism actions haven’t been sufficient, and has laid out a comprehensive path forward.

Along with millions of our fellow Americans, my prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and their families. And, along with those many millions, I’m looking forward to a national conversation about improving our national security to find and stop Islamist terrorists before they attack again.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint rose from modest South Carolina roots and a career in marketing to build and lead a resurgent conservative movement. 

"‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say" - Fred Lucas / June 16, 2016;
http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/16/radical-islam-does-matter-in-identifying-enemy-experts-say/ "...Islamism is a political ideology and it has to be taken on,” Lohman continued in the email. “If we physically dissuade terrorists from hurting people, we still have to stop Islamists from coercing people into their way of thinking by other means. Actually identifying the ideology is key to that, and unfortunately, that ideology is cast in religious terms. It’s like a Muslim civil society leader in Indonesia told me one time talking about the much more serious threat in her own country, ‘What difference does it make whether they are terrorists or not. They (Islamists) all want the same thing.’” ... 


“A label may seem superficial. American soldiers in Normandy didn’t care whether they were fighting Germans or Nazis,” Carafano told The Daily Signal. “The real fear is that the president is not prosecuting the war to win. It’s horrible to imply using the word ‘Islam’ is racist. ‘Radical Islam’ refers to an Islamist ideology, and is by definition a distinction from Islam.”