#1697 (8/31) "Finding Your Calling in an Age of Entitlement - WORK FOR GOD’S GLORY"

"Finding Your Calling in an Age of Entitlement - WORK FOR GOD’S GLORY" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: August 29, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29770 

“Follow your passions,” is advice many college students hear when considering future careers. I’ve got different, maybe better, advice.

A couple years ago, the Huffington Post’s “Wait But Why” blog created Lucy, an imagined embodiment of today’s emerging adult. Lucy is what the article called a GYPSY, short for Generation Y Protagonists and Special Yuppy. Lucy is destined to be unhappy. From their earliest years, GYPSYs like Lucy, born between the late 70s and mid-90s, were told that they’re special, that they can be whatever they want to be, and that they should just “follow their passions” when choosing a career. Not surprisingly GYPSYs tend to struggle with a sense of entitlement. According to the article, “The GYPSY needs a lot more from a career than … prosperity and security. ...where the Baby Boomers wanted to live The American Dream, GYPSYs want to live Their Own Personal Dream.”

And this is a recipe for unhappiness. In those rare situations when reality exceeds our expectations, those convinced of the inherent goodness of their own personal dreams will be happy. But when reality falls short, as is most often the case, these dreamers will be unhappy, even depressed. Reality will never match the dreams GYPSYs have been told to expect.

Christians are guilty of inculcating false expectations to their young as well. For at least a couple of generations, Christian colleges and other educational institutions, with the noble intent of communicating the Biblical concept of “calling” being more than just full-time ministry jobs, have taught students to look at their own giftedness as the key (and sometimes the only key) to discovering “God’s will.” I must confess my own guilt in this regard.

Of course, it’s true the Lord has gifted us in unique ways to serve Him, and that we can discover these gifts through our passions and use them for His glory. Remember Olympian Eric Liddell’s wonderful line from Chariots of Fire? “God has made me…fast, and when I run I feel God’s pleasure.” While the biblical picture of calling and vocation includes our giftedness, it also includes things like sacrifice, persecution, and an awareness of the needs of my neighbors. Jesus said that those who follow him carry crosses. Paul said that anyone who wishes to follow Christ will be persecuted. (Remember, Eric Liddell died in a Japanese prison camp.)

It’s really only Christians in the West, especially America, who’ve had the luxury of dwelling on the question, “What has God made me to do and what is my calling?” Unfortunately, along the way, we’ve missed other lessons about calling that our brothers and sisters around the world are forced to learn.

The Protestant Reformers understood calling to be not primarily about passion, but as a commitment to glorify God in whatever station we find ourselves. It may be your calling right now to be a student, or a mom or a dad, or a minimum wage employee simply just having to make a living. Whether directly connected with our passions or not, God calls us first and foremost to do the next thing well, to His glory, with all of our might.

Short of this awareness, we’ll risk “Christianizing” a sense of entitlement. Instead of asking “What is God’s will for my life some day?” we should be asking, “What does God want me to do well next?”

In Acts 17, Paul says God determines the exact times people live and the boundaries of their dwelling place. Thus, whether we inherit a culture of economic downturn in which many can’t find a job, or a culture in which jobs are so plentiful we truly can “follow our passion,” we accept either as being from God’s hand. Our calling —in whatever culture we find ourselves—is to live fully engaged in this world, regardless of the particular circumstances.

Deitrich Bonhoeffer wrote, “Bravely take hold of the real, not dallying now with what might be. Not in the flight of ideas but only in action is freedom. Make up your mind and come out into the tempest of the living.” Amen. These are good words for every generation.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - John has provided all believers with some practical encouragement: Do what you do, whatever it is at this particular stage of life, to the glory and honor of God.

"Loving Mondays: Business as a Calling" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | September 1, 2006; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/13429
The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life - Os Guinness | W Publishing Group | October 2003; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=0849944376
God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life - Gene Edward Veith | Crossway Books | August 2011; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9781433524479

#1696 (8/30) "Unlike the NFL’s Colin Kaepernick, Frederick Douglass Loved ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’"

"UNLIKE THE NFL'S COLIN KAEPERNICK, FREDERICK DOUGLAS LOVED 'THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER'" - Jarrett Stepman / August 29, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/29/unlike-the-nfls-colin-kaepernick-frederick-douglass-loved-the-star-spangled-banner/? [AS I SEE IT: People supporting the QB like to say that it's a person's right to not show patriotism. But just because a person is free to do something is never a reason for a person to do something that is thoughtless or shows disrespect. Along with having a right is the duty to act responsibly. - Stan] 

Frederick Douglass played the national anthem for his grandchildren and guests at his District of Columbia home. (Photo: Glasshouse Images/Newscom)

National Football League player Colin Kaepernick created a stir on Friday when he refused to stand for the national anthem at the start of a preseason game. The San Francisco 49ers quarterback cited the prevalence of racism and oppression in America as the primary reasons he sat during the playing of the song. The Bay Area football star has been fading over the last few years and he’ll likely be doing a lot of sitting this season—for the national anthem or otherwise. But Kaepernick’s protest has initiated a national debate over patriotism and respect for the American flag.

“The Star-Spangled Banner” was written by Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812; it was officially adopted as the national anthem in 1931 and has been a staple at sports events for more than a century. The song is filled with martial and patriotic references, finishing with a stanza that makes an ode to America as the “land of the free, and the home of the brave.”

To the majority of Americans, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is a moving tribute to what the country represents: freedom, duty, bravery, and commitment to the men and women serving in the armed forces. Clearly, Kaepernick—who makes millions of dollars playing the game he loves—has a different view of what the over two-century-old song represents.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told the NFL media. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Lambasting “The Star-Spangled Banner” isn’t a new phenomenon. Liberal groups and commentators have tried to get the tune replaced for years, citing racism (Key was a slave owner) and the inherent “militarism” of the song. An op-ed in The Intercept supported Kaepernick’s actions by dredging up a few stanzas, since removed from the modern rendition of the anthem, that explicitly mention slavery. Columnist Jon Schwarz wrote that the song “literally celebrates the murder of African-Americans.”

Hyperbolic reactions to one of America’s oldest patriotic songs fly in the face of what perhaps a dwindling number of Americans understand. Although the American republic was founded with many imperfections and contradictions—such as the institution of slavery—the timeless principles laid at its foundation have led to more human prosperity for a wider variety of people than any civilization in human history.

Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave who played a critical role in the abolitionist movement in the mid-19th century, had been a frequent critic of American policy and the existence of the “peculiar institution.” However, he believed that the dearly held principles of the Declaration of Independence, and its unequivocal statement that all men are “created equal,” would eventually lead to slavery’s dissolution.

Douglass pulled no punches in criticizing slavery as a massive contradiction in American life, but he understood the evils of the system would be corrected by embracing the country’s origins rather than rejecting them. He encouraged black Americans to sign up and fight for the Union under the American flag during the Civil War, played a crucial role in recruitment efforts, and convinced many former slaves to serve in the military and embrace the United States as the vessel—not the thwarter—of freedom.

Douglass was known to frequently play “The Star-Spangled Banner” on his violin for his grandchildren in the years after the war. He said in an 1871 speech at Arlington National Cemetery that “if the star-spangled banner floats only over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization, we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army.”

For the most part, fans and players in the NFL embrace a similar view of the United States.

Rashad Jennings, a black athlete who plays for the NFL’s New York Giants channeled Douglass in his support for the national anthem and the American flag. He told the New York Daily News, “It’s nice to know that we live in a country where sitting down during the anthem won’t land you in jail or worse.” Jennings said he was proud to stand for the song and continued to explain why he supports the values contained in its verses: "I figure if it was the intention of our Founding Fathers to keep America a nation of slaves, then it wouldn’t have chosen a song where all four verses end with ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave’ instead of ‘land of the free, home of the slave.’" Jennings’ teammates made a point to stand at attention for the national anthem during a Saturday night game against the New York Jets.

Gallup polls indicate there has been a rapid decline of American pride in their country in recent years—a dangerous slide for a multiethnic republic bound together by principles and institutions rather than national origin.

Kaepernick’s outright attack on what the American flag exemplifies is just the latest sad episode of Americans’ abandonment of the hallmarks of their unity and love of country. This is why it is important for Americans who still believe in what the country was founded on to stand and support the symbols of our way of life.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1695 (8/29) "TRUE Feminism and the Constitution Have Always Been Compatible"

"TRUE FEMINISM AND THE CONSTITUTION HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COMPATIBLE" - Christina Villegas / August 26, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/26/true-feminism-and-the-constitution-have-always-been-compatible/?

The ideology of the modern feminist movement poses a serious threat to the American constitutional system. (Photo: BrianSnyder/Reuters/Newscom)

Feminists have convinced many Americans that the U.S. Constitution was and remains an impediment to the rights of women. They argue that freedom and equality for women have come to fruition only as a result of modern feminism. In reality, as I argue in “The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government,” the Constitution has always been compatible with women’s equal political rights.

Although modern feminists frequently speak the language of equal opportunity and rights, the movement has strayed from this narrow mission in favor of a far more radical agenda. In the name of “equality,” modern feminism seeks to eliminate gender distinctions and promote absolute parity between the sexes in all areas of society based on a monolithic view of what it means to be an autonomous woman.

As a result, this movement is less interested in protecting individual opportunity and equality than it is in bringing about fundamental legal and social transformation. Such change requires the vast expansion of government, the redefinition of freedom, and the preferential application of the law to women based on their identity as a specially protected class.

This agenda undermines America’s constitutional system, which limits the scope and character of the law with a view to protecting the individual rights of men and women alike.

Constitutional Government and Women’s Rights
     The modern feminist hostility to limited constitutional government represents a stark shift from the self-understanding and demands of America’s earliest women’s rights advocates (or what is known as the first wave of feminism). These early advocates largely sought to improve opportunities for American women through the expansion of political and legal rights, such as the rights to vote, to own property, and to pursue profitable employment and higher education on an equal basis with men.  
Far from being hostile to such rights, the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence in which it is rooted were always compatible with women’s equal political and legal rights. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution of 1787 was never in principle a barrier to female suffrage; Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 simply left the issue up to the states. Additionally, the Constitution’s protections against arbitrary and capricious government action—such as the prohibition against the impairment of contracts, ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus—by clear implication have always extended to women as well as men.

It is true that because of variations in state law, women did not immediately enjoy the same political and legal rights throughout the nation that men enjoyed, but the authority of the founding documents, and the ideas of natural human equality on which they were based, inspired the movement for the expansion of such rights. 

The Rejection of Constitutional Government
     Beginning in the 1960s, the second wave of feminism expanded mainstream feminism’s focus from the political and legal, to the social. Its adherents began arguing that the public and private relationships between the sexes are inherently oppressive and that women’s subordinate position within familial and social structures is the root cause of their legal, political, and economic inequality.

At the same time, post-1960s feminists consistently began to redefine freedom and equality. No longer did these ideals mean the right to receive equal protection of the law and make decisions for oneself. Rather, feminists construed them as qualities that are achieved only when women fully develop their social and intellectual faculties and become autonomous of constraints imposed by gender. This understanding of freedom and equality culminated in the view that, aside from anatomy, there are essentially no innate differences between men and women, and that women can achieve self-actualization only by pursuing work outside the home.

Practically speaking, this perception has led most contemporary feminists to gauge equality in terms of outcome uniformity rather than equal legal opportunity. Because contemporary feminists generally deny that natural differences between the sexes might influence the free expression of their preferences, they tend to interpret observable differences in outcomes between males and females (for example, in different career fields) as evidence of systemic discrimination and debilitating social conditioning.

Specifically, they argue that the lack of statistical parity between the sexes in all areas of social, economic, and political life results from discrimination, power imbalances within the family and society as a whole, and pervasive gender-based violence. On these grounds, the modern feminist movement supports policies that both implicitly and overtly reject the scope and character of American constitutionalism.

Constitutional government, which limits the reach of government authority with a view to impartially protecting individual rights without regard to sex, is a barrier to the state intervention, regulation of individual liberty, and preferential treatment that feminists believe are necessary for women to escape gendered patterns of socialization and deeply embedded sexism.

According to the logic of modern feminism, the bounds of political authority should be defined not by what is necessary to protect individual rights, freedom, and opportunity, but by what is necessary to secure a specific outcome for women as a historically oppressed group.

Those who are serious about re-establishing constitutional limits on the power of government for the benefit of men and women alike, need to understand how the ideology of the modern feminist movement poses a serious threat to the American constitutional system, which is intended to protect individuals regardless of gender or group membership.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Christina Villegas is an assistant professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and a visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.

#1694 (8/28) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Faith at the Olympics - RIO’S BEST KEPT SECRET'

"Faith at the Olympics - RIO’S BEST KEPT SECRET' - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: August 22, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29739

Despite the media's wall-to-wall Olympic coverage, you’ve likely not heard the best story of all.

We’ve all heard the story of Eric Liddell, who turned down an opportunity for Olympic gold at the Paris Games in 1924 in order to honor His Savior. It was Liddell who famously said, “God made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure.”

Well, this summer in Rio de Janeiro, there’s been a whole lot of running, jumping, swimming, and competing by athletes seeking to honor Jesus Christ. Not that you’ve heard much about it from the “mainstream” media. I spoke about this media blackout with my friend Terry Mattingly, who’s one of today’s foremost religion journalists. Terry told me, “If these athletes make faith a part of their story, how do you leave out faith when telling their story?”(Come to BreakPoint.org for a link to the podcast.)

Now, I’ve already told you the story of super-swimmer Michael Phelps, who reached the pinnacle of sports and found it hollow—and then contemplated suicide. But Phelps found a reason to live when Ray Lewis gave him a copy of “The Purpose-Driven Life,” by Rick Warren. Michael’s story reminds us of the role that God’s people have as bringers of hope and agents of restoration.

There have been many such reminders in Rio. Fiji dominated Great Britain, 43-7 in rugby, earning the island country’s first-ever gold medal. Then the winning players huddled and sang, both in English and Fijian: “We have overcome / We have overcome / By the blood of the Lamb / And the Word of the Lord / We have overcome.” Then they received their medals humbly—on their knees!

In the women’s 10,000 meters race, Almaz Ayana, from Ethiopia, obliterated the previous world record by 14 seconds. Responding to unfounded rumors about cheating, Almaz retorted, “My doping is my training and my doping is Jesus. Nothing otherwise —I am crystal clear.”

American swimmer Simone Manuel set an Olympic record in the 100-meter freestyle, becoming the first African-American woman to win gold as a swimmer, the first African-American woman to win a medal in an individual swimming event, and the first American to win the 100-meter since 1984. After the race she said, with tears rolling down her cheeks, “All I can say is all glory to God.”

Then there’s another inspiring Olympian named Simone—Simone Biles, acknowledged to be the world’s greatest female gymnast—and perhaps the best ever. But what’s truly inspiring is her story—adopted at age 6 by her grandparents because of her mother’s battle with addiction. Now reconciled with her mom, Simone draws strength from her relationship with God and her faith.

Katie Ledecky, who may become the greatest woman swimmer of all time—and who won the 800-meter freestyle by an amazing 11 seconds—says her faith in Christ “is part of who I am.”

I could go on and on in this Olympic hall of faith, but I’ll leave you with just one more. Champion diver David Boudia says he’s well aware of the need to represent Christ with integrity, saying, “If I represent a good God, I need to be that visual representation of him all the time, not just when I feel like it.” David tells his amazing and inspiring story from despair to discipleship in his book, “Greater Than Gold: From Olympic Heartbreak to Ultimate Redemption.”

It’s great to see these “bringers of hope and agents of restoration” compete for the glory of God. But we’d miss the point if all we do is applaud them and then turn off our TVs. We are called to compete for Christ, too. As Eric Liddell also said, “It has been a wonderful experience to compete in the Olympic Games and to bring home a gold medal. But … I have had my eyes on a different prize. … Each one of us is in a greater race than any I have run in Paris, and this race ends when God gives out the medals.”

Amen. Now that is a story worth repeating!

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
"Michael Phelps Is Driven: An Olympian Finds His Purpose" - Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | August 11, 2016;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29694

"Eric Metaxas and Terry Mattingly podcast, Faith at the Olympics" - Eric Metaxas Show | August 15, 2016; http://www.metaxastalk.com/podcast/monday-august-15-2016/

"Post on Fiji rugby team" - Andy Merrick | August 11, 2016; https://www.facebook.com/andymerrick/posts/10103115707798468

"10 Christian Team USA Athletes at Rio Olympics 2016 Who Put God First" - Christine Thomasos | Christian Post | August 5, 2016; http://www.christianpost.com/news/10-christian-team-usa-athletes-at-rio-olympics-2016-who-put-god-first-167556/

"Olympic swimmer Simone Manuel gives ‘all glory to God’ after historic gold" - Emily McFarlan Miller | ReligionNews.com | August 13, 2016; http://religionnews.com/2016/08/13/olympic-swimmer-simone-manuel-gives-all-glory-to-god-after-historic-gold/

Eric Liddell: Pure Gold  -David McCasland | Discovery House Publishers | September 2001; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=1572931302

#1693 (8/27) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Extreme Position of Pro-Choice Politicians Contradicts American Consensus"

"EXTREME POSITION OF PRO-CHOICE POLITICIANS CONTRADICT  AMERICAN CONSENSUS" - Carl Anderson / August 25, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/25/extreme-position-of-pro-choice-politicians-contradicts-american-consensus/?

Despite the American consensus on this issue, more and more extreme positions are being proposed by pro-abortion politicians. (Photo: Evan Golub/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Lurking behind the annual split among Americans over the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” is a new reality. The fact is that today, whatever label they choose, Americans overwhelmingly support abortion restrictions.

Pro-choice politicians who typically support unrestricted, or almost unrestricted, abortion share the extreme view of a tiny minority of the American people. Consider this. A majority of Americans who identify as pro-choice (62 percent) say that abortion should be restricted to—at most—the first trimester of pregnancy. Less than a quarter of them (22 percent) want unrestricted abortion.

Among Americans as a whole, the number who want such abortion restrictions is about eight in 10 (78 percent). Only about one in 10 of this group (13 percent) would leave it unrestricted.
Almost twice as many American voters would limit abortion to—at most—saving the life of the mother (24 percent) as would allow it any time.

It’s not a partisan issue either. Strong majorities regardless of political identity would restrict abortion to the first trimester, at most. This includes about two-thirds of Democrats (65 percent), as well as eight in 10 independents (80 percent), and nine in 10 Republicans (93 percent). There are few issues in our country on which you find such a strong consensus from across the political spectrum.

The polling we commissioned on this issue was done by the gold standard in public opinion research: Marist. That’s the same pollster used by NBC News, McClatchy, and The Wall Street Journal. The numbers have been consistent on this for nearly a decade. Americans overwhelmingly support substantial restrictions on abortion. “Pro-life” politicians typically support bills consistent with this national consensus.

Nevertheless, self-identified “pro-choice” politicians generally hew to a policy orthodoxy that allows for no restrictions at all on abortion—even though it’s a view hardly ever shared by their constituents. The typical “pro-choice” politician today represents the most radical view of abortion in the country—a view they share with only about one in 10 Americans (13 percent). Some of these politicians celebrate abortion as a right that should not be restricted in any way. That’s the same line taken by the abortion industry, whose livelihood depends on performing this destructive procedure.

Other politicians hide behind the idea that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but cannot impose their will on the majority. What majority are they talking about? Nearly everyone in the country wants solid restrictions on abortion, making such a position either ignorant or dishonest. If a politician is really “personally opposed,” he should have the decency to follow his conscience and not block the vast consensus on this issue. Better yet, he could take John F. Kennedy’s advice, who said when running for president in 1960 that he would resign if his conscience came into conflict with what he saw as the public interest. Kennedy said he hoped “any conscientious public servant would do the same.” That’s still good advice, and a worthy wish, five decades later.

Instead, the opposite is occurring. Despite the American consensus on this issue, more and more extreme positions are being proposed by pro-abortion politicians. Some are pledging to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bans tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions—contrary to Americans’ view that tax dollars should not be used this way. Nearly two in three Americans would prohibit the use of tax dollars for abortion (62 percent). This includes more than four in 10 Democrats (44 percent), more than six in 10 independents (61 percent), and more than eight in 10 Republicans (84 percent). Those who identify as pro-choice are split too, with 45 percent saying tax dollars should not be used for abortion.

Abortion is now the number one cause of death in America. With more than 50 million abortions since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, no other issue comes close in scale. And yet, each year, another million abortions are allowed to occur by politicians who turn a deaf ear to the will of the people and oppose restrictions.

It’s time for the abortion extremism among these politicians to end. It’s time for “pro-choice” politicians to begin supporting policy proposals that restrict abortion consistent with our national consensus.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Carl Anderson is the CEO of the Knights of Columbus and a New York Times bestselling author.

#1692 (8/26) "3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials"

"3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Bad for Millennials" - Timothy Doescher / Lillian Wolfensohn / August 10, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/10/3-reasons-why-obamacare-is-bad-for-millennials/?

Because of Obamacare, young people have seen up to a 44 percent increase in premiums. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography /Newscom)

For many millennials, the fear of entering the “real world” is looming. We are preparing to face the financial challenges, often feeling like we are starting the trek up Mount Everest. Many of us are scrambling to find jobs and avoiding moving back in with our parents. We recognize more and more that good jobs putting us on a promising career path are harder to find.

     But our generation faces an additional challenge. Obamacare is jeopardizing our personal freedom and our financial future in ways few saw coming and many are unprepared to handle.
So many young people believe Obamacare is helping our society and will make health care more affordable, but now it is abundantly clear that the plan is harming young people.

Health Care Costs Skyrocket
     Because of Obamacare, young people have seen up to a 44 percent increase in premiums because the new 3-1 ratio (older people can’t be charged more than three times the cost of a young person’s health care) forces the young to subsidize the old in the health insurance market. Not only are elderly individuals paying artificially lower prices for their insurance, but millennials are paying artificially higher prices.

     This gives young people a strong monetary incentive to go without insurance and pay the annual fine for not buying insurance and then still “free ride” at the expense of the taxpayer with hospital emergency room care when they do get sick. If these regulations weren’t in place, young people’s premiums would be reduced by around $1,100. That’s a lot of money for many young people starting in entry-level jobs, making only $10-15 an hour.

     One aspect of Obamacare that seemed appealing to millennials on the surface was that if they are age 26 or younger they can stay on their parent’s plan—assuming their parents have employment-based coverage. However, if they don’t, they must enroll through the health insurance exchanges, where their choices are scarce. If they don’t do either, they must pay a fine. What we want to do is enroll in less expensive health plans of our choice. We can’t do that under these restrictions.

    In addition, some options that were specifically designed for young people have been outlawed. Most college students only need and want basic coverage, which they could get through a limited benefit plan. Obamacare has abolished these minimum coverage caps (the plan’s minimum amount of money used to cover medical expenses) that characterizes these short-term, college plans. This desirable option of limited, short-term insurance coverage is now no longer available for students. Instead of expanding coverage, some young people have decided to go without. That defeats the whole purpose of this law.

Harder to Keep Jobs
     Because of Obamacare’s mandates on businesses, employers are increasingly forced to cut back on hiring and hours of work. Employers are forced to purchase expensive insurance packages at the risk of being fined. The law mandates to anyone employing 50 or more full-time employees to purchase federally standardized health insurance. This coverage is often very expensive because of the inclusion of a wide range of government-mandated benefits.

     If businesses don’t offer the federally-approved coverage, they can be fined at a rate of $2,000 to $3,000 for each employee who isn’t covered. Employers deal with this by not absorbing the costs, but passing it on to their workers. How? By slashing hours, cutting wages, rolling back other benefits, and firing people with the least seniority. It’s not surprising that people have had to take multiple jobs just to support themselves. For young people entering the workforce, this doesn’t make our chances of securing jobs upon graduation any easier.

An Explosion of the National Debt
     If the above two reasons weren’t enough to make a young person worry, this point will for sure.
As of March 2015, Obamacare has a net cost of $1.207 trillion over the next 10 years and will add an additional $17 trillion over the next 75 years in unfunded liabilities. Our national debt is over $19 trillion, so how is the United States supposed to pay for this? Oh, that’s right, it will increase taxes on the young people who will continue to pay for Obamacare, as well as the other giant federal entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—for the rest of our lives.

     Not only are the young subsidizing the old through Obamacare’s unfair insurance rating rules, they are also subsidizing a large and rapidly-growing elderly population—including wealthy retirees—through their payroll and income taxes. Imagine how much that will end up costing. Imagine how much of our hard-earned money will go toward big entitlement programs like this one, which we might never benefit from. If the goal was simply to provide help for those who could not afford health insurance, we could have easily done it without incurring Obamacare’s massive cost and debt. But that wasn’t the goal. The goal was more government intervention, and less of the free market; sadly it seems to be working.

A Better Solution for Young People
     There is a better way to help the millions of Americans struggling to find affordable coverage, but not at a debilitating cost to young people. Congressional Republicans, led by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., recently released a plan that embraces a free marketplace, respects personal freedom, allows Americans to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, and embraces the diversity of this wonderful land we call America. Ryan’s plan would reform the health care system, starting with the repeal of Obamacare. The plan states: “This law cannot be fixed. Its knots of regulations, taxes, and mandates cannot be untangled.”

     The congressional Republican plan will allow people to buy insurance anywhere in America, creating a highly competitive national market for health insurance. It would give Americans more options, better quality, and intense competition that would lower costs. States would be able to regulate their own health insurance markets, meaning that Washington could no longer force employers and individuals to purchase “Washington-mandated” health plans. It would mean that young people would be able to buy insurance that fits their needs, rather than pay artificially inflated insurance premiums.

     Removing the employer mandate would mean that businesses would be able to purchase coverage that is best for them, and they would be able to balance health benefits with wages and other benefits. It would also open up job opportunities, enabling businesses to hire more full-time staff instead of many part-time staff, creating more job security and larger paychecks. That would be a direct benefit to young people entering the workforce.

     Obamacare was supposed to lower costs and increase access to care. While insurance coverage has increased, health care costs have soared, particularly for the young. The most energetic new workers are being slammed with higher costs of insurance, including big deductibles—forcing many to go without. President Barack Obama said his plan would not only expand coverage, but would also control costs, reduce typical family premiums, and expand competition. In fact, its biggest achievement has been to increase cost and expand government control.

      Many of our peers don’t like conservatives very much, but they don’t realize that the Ryan alternative to Obamacare will lower insurance costs—especially for millennials. This plan was created with an understanding that young people shouldn’t bear the entire burden and recognizes that our future should be full of excitement and opportunity, not high taxes, suffocating bureaucracy, and crippling premiums.

Lillian Wolfensohn is a senior at George Washington University and is a summer student assistant for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation.

#1691 (8/25) "America’s Abandonment of Traditional Values Has Hurt the Black Community"

"AMERICA'S  ABANDONMENT OF TRADITIONAL VALUES HAS HURT THE BLACK COMMUNITY" - Walter E. Williams / August 11, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/11/the-usas-abandonment-of-traditional-values-has-hurt-the-black-community/

The abandonment of traditional values has negatively affected the nation as a whole, but blacks have borne the greater burden. (Photo: iStock Photos)

One of the unavoidable consequences of youth is the tendency to think behavior we see today has always been. I’d like to dispute that vision, at least as it pertains to black people.

I graduated from Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin High School in 1954. Franklin’s predominantly black students were from the poorest North Philadelphia neighborhoods.
During those days, there were no policemen patrolling the hallways. Today, close to 400 police patrol Philadelphia schools. There were occasional after-school fights—rumbles, as we called them—but within the school, there was order. In contrast with today, students didn’t use foul language to teachers, much less assault them.

Places such as the Richard Allen housing project, where I lived, became some of the most dangerous and dysfunctional places in Philadelphia. Mayhem—in the form of murders, shootings, and assaults—became routine.

By the 1980s, residents found that they had to have window bars and multiple locks. The 1940s and ’50s Richard Allen project, as well as other projects, bore no relation to what they became. Many people never locked their doors; windows weren’t barred. We did not go to bed with the sound of gunshots. Most of the residents were two-parent families with one or both parents working.

How might one explain the greater civility of Philadelphia and other big-city, predominantly black neighborhoods and schools during earlier periods compared with today? Would anyone argue that during the ’40s and ’50s, there was less racial discrimination and poverty? Was academic performance higher because there were greater opportunities? Was civility in school greater in earlier periods because black students had more black role models in the form of black principals, teachers, and guidance counselors? That’s nonsense, at least in northern schools. In my case, I had no more than three black teachers throughout primary and secondary school.

Starting in the 1960s, the values that made for civility came under attack. Corporal punishment was banned. This was the time when the education establishment and liberals launched their agenda that undermined lessons children learned from their parents and the church. 

Sex education classes undermined family/church strictures against premarital sex. Lessons of abstinence were ridiculed, considered passé, and replaced with lessons about condoms, birth control pills, and abortion. Further undermining of parental authority came with legal and extralegal measures to assist teenage abortions, often with neither parental knowledge nor parental consent.

Customs, traditions, moral values, and rules of etiquette are behavioral norms, transmitted mostly by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings. As such, they represent a body of wisdom distilled through the ages by experience and trial and error.

The nation’s liberals—along with the education establishment, pseudo-intellectuals, and the courts—have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. Many people have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what’s moral or immoral is a matter of personal convenience, personal opinion, what feels good, or what is or is not criminal. We no longer condemn or shame self-destructive and rude behavior, such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, dependency, cheating, and lying. We have replaced what worked with what sounds good.

The abandonment of traditional values has negatively affected the nation as a whole, but blacks have borne the greater burden. This is seen by the decline in the percentage of black two-parent families. Today, a little over 30 percent of black children live in an intact family, where as early as the late 1800s, over 70 percent did. Black illegitimacy in 1938 was 11 percent, and that for whites was 3 percent. Today, it’s respectively 73 percent and 30 percent.

It is the height of dishonesty, as far as blacks are concerned, to blame our problems on slavery, how white people behave, and racial discrimination. If those lies are not exposed, we will continue to look for external solutions when true solutions are internal. Those of us who are old enough to know better need to expose these lies.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

#1690 (8/24) "Unbroken in China - THE GROWING CHINESE CHURCH"

"Unbroken in China - THE GROWING CHINESE CHURCH" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: August 15, 2016;

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29703

The greater the persecution, the greater the revival. It's a phrase Chinese Christians are using these days, and with good reason.

You’ve probably heard a lot about China in the news lately: How it’s threatening peace in the Pacific by building military bases on artificial islands. You’ve heard presidential candidates warn that China may soon overtake the U. S. as the leading global economic power. But what you probably didn’t realize is that China is ready to overtake the U. S. in another area: the size of its Christian population. You see, despite years of often savage oppression, the church in China is growing by leaps and bounds.

Yu Jie, a writer and dissident from China, tells the story powerfully in the August issue of First Things magazine. Yu reports that since 1949, when the communists took over and Christian missionaries were expelled, the number of Christians in China has multiplied from half a million to more than 60 million today. If current growth rates continue, “by 2030, Christians in China will exceed 200 million . . . making China the country with the largest Christian population in the world.”

And Yu, who became disillusioned with communism after the Tiananmen Square massacre, might very well be a little bit cautious in his estimates. The respected Operation World prayer guide counts not 60 million but 105 million Christians of all kinds in the country, far outstripping the 70 million or so members of the Communist Party!

Either way, it’s easy to see that the Chinese Church has been unbroken by decades of communist opposition. These days few Chinese outside the Party believe in communism, and the Church has begun to fill the resulting spiritual and worldview vacuums.

“Groups of young, well-educated, active professionals have gathered in urban churches,” Yu says, “smashing the stereotype in many Chinese people’s minds of Christians as elderly, infirm, sick, or disabled. These churches … are a first step toward Christians assuming leadership in the development of a Chinese civil society independent of government control.”

Perhaps that’s why the regime has begun cracking down on Christians of late. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Over the past year, the Chinese government has stepped up its persecution of religious groups deemed a threat to the state’s supremacy and maintenance of a socialist society. Christian communities have borne a significant brunt of the oppression, with numerous churches bulldozed and crosses torn down.” Yet as Yu reports, “Chinese Christians have refused to give in.” In fact, Yu says, “One of the phrases I have heard most often among them is: ‘The greater the persecution, the greater the revival.’”

I am thrilled to tell you that many Christians in China are finding inspiration from one of my personal heroes—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who stood against and was executed by the Nazis. Yu says, “Chinese Christians also see in Bonhoeffer a man who dared wage war as an ant on an elephant. He found wisdom and courage in Jesus, knowing that Jesus exists for others, and those who follow him should do the same.”

And that’s what Chinese Christians, unbroken by this latest round of persecution, are doing—living for others, no matter what.  The churches have a large and growing presence in serving their non-Christian neighbors in the name of Christ, Operation World reports. They’re also active in evangelism, both at home and abroad.

And folks, they deserve our prayers.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
"China’s Christian Future" - Yu Jie | First Things | August 2016; https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/08/chinas-christian-future

"NGO No-Go: More Countries Make Christian Charity Harder to Give and Receive"- Morgan Lee | Christianity Today | June 23, 2016;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/julaug/ngo-no-go-china-restrictions-makes-christian-charity-harder.html

"China: Christians threatened with having welfare payments cut unless they stop going to church" - Carey Lodge | Christian Today | August 10, 2016; http://www.christiantoday.com/article/china.christians.threatened.with.having.welfare.payments.cut.unless.they.stop.going.to.church/92814.htm

"New Reports on Religious Freedom: We All Have a Stake" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | May 11, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29276

"God Is Moving in China: Filling a Peoples’ Spiritual Void" - Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | June 11, 2015; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-search/entry/13/27561

Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power- David Aikman |Regnery Publishing | December 2006

#1689 (8/23) "Find Out How Many Jobs Your State Could Lose With a $15 Minimum Wage"

"FIND OUT HOW MANY JOBS  YOUR  STATE COULD LOSE WITH A $15 MINIMUM WAGE" - Melissa Quinn / August 22, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/find-out-how-many-jobs-your-state-could-lose-with-a-15-minimum-wage/?

Labor unions and fast-food workers have pushed for a $15 an hour minimum wage, protesting in cities nationwide. However, a new study found that a $15 an hour minimum wage could lead to hundreds of thousands of job losses. (Photo: 2016 Marilyn Humphries /Newscom)

Following legislation in New York and California raising their statewide minimum wages to $15 an hour, a new study has found that such statewide mandates would lead to hundreds of thousands of job losses.

According to a new study from The Heritage Foundation, proposals at the state and federal levels to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour would lead to job losses in nearly all states and the District of Columbia. Conducted by James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics, the study found that state minimum wage hikes would lead to the loss of 9 million jobs across the country.

States like Texas, California, and Florida would see the highest number of job losses in 2021, with Texas and California losing more than 900,000 jobs, and Florida losing more than 700,000. In California, 34 percent of wage and salaried workers would be impacted, compared to 38 percent and 40 percent of wage and salaried workers in Texas and Florida, respectively. Additionally, though states like West Virginia and South Dakota would lose 52,000 jobs (West Virginia) and 22,000 jobs (South Dakota), more than 37 percent of those states’ wage and salaried workers would be impacted.

Other states, like New York and North Carolina, could see job losses topping 434,000 and 367,000, respectively.

A federal minimum wage hike to $15 an hour would lead to fewer job losses nationwide—approximately 7 million. Sherk said this difference can be attributed to the statewide minimum wage proposals that have already been signed into law. States like California and New York, for example, would see fewer job losses since those states are phasing in state minimum wage hikes through 2022. By 2021, California’s minimum wage will be $14 an hour, according to state law, which means the state would lose 134,000 jobs that year. Additionally, Sherk said federal minimum wage proposals typically exempt those in the agricultural sector, while state laws do not.

A $15 an hour federal minimum wage would hit Texas the hardest, with the state projected to lose more than 900,000 jobs in 2021. Florida, meanwhile, would lose 594,000 jobs, according to Sherk’s analysis.

“In general, it’s bad for places like Texas that are low cost of living states,” Vance Ginn, an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Employers are going to want to let go of those who are the least skilled and the least educated, which ends up hurting the people we are trying to help along the way instead of letting market forces work.”

Both Sherk and Ginn agreed that a $15 an hour minimum wage would impact states with lower costs of living—like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina—more than those that are more expensive to live in. “In states with lower living costs and lower wages, you’re going to see a strong effect,” Sherk told The Daily Signal.

Sherk said that a worker would have to produce approximately $18.60 an hour in value or the company loses money in hiring them. “Forcing businesses to pay starting wages at $15 an hour makes less-skilled workers and less-experienced workers unemployable. The worker has to be able to produce at least as much in value through their labor as they’re getting paid in wages as well as the employer share of payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and the Obamacare mandate,” he said. “A $15 an hour starting wage mandate means those workers are unemployable,” Sherk continued. “Businesses would lose money hiring them and they’re not going to do that.”

Over the last few years, labor unions have been pushing to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Since then, groups like Fight for $15, made up largely of fast-food workers, have staged strikes in cities nationwide to protest for wage hikes. The group argues that while their employers are “multi-billion corporations,” they are forced to live in poverty.

Earlier this year, Democratic Govs. Jerry Brown of California and Andrew Cuomo of New York signed bills in their respective states raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next few years. California’s wage hike will be phased in over a five-year period, bringing the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022. New York’s $15 an hour minimum wage will go into effect in New York City first by 2019, and will take hold statewide by 2021. “This is about creating a little tiny bit of balance in a system that every day becomes more unbalanced,” Brown said at the bill’s signing.

Already, states and cities with a $15 an hour minimum wage are beginning to see the impact of the higher minimum wage. American Apparel, for example, said in April it is going to begin outsourcing some of its manufacturing, taking with it 500 Los Angeles jobs, according to the Los Angeles Times. Additionally, small business owners in San Diego told The Daily Signal earlier this year they would have to either raise prices or close their doors to compensate for the increased labor costs a $15 an hour minimum wage would bring. And some fast-food restaurants like McDonald’s and Panera Bread have begun installing self-service kiosks.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Melissa Quinn is a senior news reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Melissa.

#1688 (8/22) "Today [8/18] We Celebrate Women’s Right to Vote, But Planned Parenthood Aborts Future Women Voters"

"TODAY[AUG.18] WE CELEBRATE WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE, BUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTS FUTURE WOMEN VOTERS" - Ryan Bomberger, Aug.18, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/08/18/today-we-celebrate-womens-right-to-vote-but-planned-parenthood-aborts-future-women-voters/

If Planned Parenthood were a patient (at least one they haven’t aborted), it could be diagnosed with one of many behavioral disorders.  But the primary diagnosis would be…mythomania. This psychological disorder is marked by an “excessive or abnormal propensity for lying and exaggerating.”

The billion-dollar abortion giant blatantly lies about basic biology and human development, peer-reviewed medical studies on birth control’s increased risk of breast cancer, overpopulation, and deliberate racial targeting. But the pathological lying, fed by billions of our tax dollars over the years, knows no end.

Women’s history has to be radically altered for the abortion-centered nonprofit to generate millions in profit. One would think that Planned Parenthood’s President, Cecile Richards, with a degree in History, would easily know the claims made on their site are ludicrously false. But this is what it means to Richards and others, who make a living off of abortions, to “trust women”. They fear people knowing the truth of their racist eugenic origins and their primary mission of population control that their mythomania kicks into high gear. Founding feminists‘ prolife profiles, like that of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, are ignored because they represented true feminism. They called abortion “child murder”…not illegal abortion…simply abortion. In their fierce publication, The Revolution (March 12, 1868, pg 146), they declared: “There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this.”  Leading feminists, many of them proud mothers like Mrs. Stanton, embraced everything that made them women while fighting fearlessly for equality.

Planned Parenthood has nothing but antipathy toward women who believe like the founding feminists and the abortion chain shows, daily, how much it truly distrusts women to make informed decisions.

 In the About Us section on Planned Parenthood’s website, they make the following outrageous claim: “In [Margaret] Sanger’s America, women cannot vote, sign contracts, have bank accounts, or divorce abusive husbands.”

Let’s start with the first one. Margaret Sanger, mother of Planned Parenthood, lived from 1879 to 1966. Women’s right to vote, enshrined in the 19th Amendment, was ratified in 1920, just four years after Sanger established her first population control clinic in New York City. This was 2 years before she published her eugenics-laden Birth Control manifesto, Pivot of Civilization. She was a prolific writer, with numerous published works, all of which required her, as a woman, to enter into numerous contracts. Does anyone believe that this female “pioneer” had to rely upon men to conduct her contractual affairs of business?

In fact, the Texas State Historical Association states: “From the time of the early republic, a single woman enjoyed basic civil liberties. Although she could not vote or serve on juries, she had the right to make contracts, to sue and be sued, to choose her domicile, to own and control property…” As usual, Planned Parenthood deliberately distorts history by conflating the rights of married women in Texas (under certain circumstances) with all women.

 By the way, the whole debacle over Texas defunding abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, in its effort to fund real medical care for Texas women resulted in far more funded options for women’s healthcare. Title X funded clinics only amounted to 300 statewide before the Texas Women’s Health Program, an initiative to fund the full range of reproductive health care for low-income women, expanded the number of medical facilities to 3,000 statewide. Abortion, since it is not healthcare, is not included. Women are far better off now that billion-dollar Planned Parenthood isn’t siphoning off millions to do what its DNA compels it to do: abortions.

Our tax dollars fund the exorbitant salary of a former history student whose organization exhibits all the signs of mythomania. Cecile Richards pulls in over $583,000 annually for her Planned Parenthood work, apparently most of which is spent lying to the American public. Leading Planned Parenthood’s propaganda is still a full-time job.

And just like women during Margaret Sanger’s time, Richards can do all of the banking she desires. According to an article from Time Magazine in 1936, women controlled “80% of U. S. life insurance, 65% of savings accounts, 48% of railroad securities, 44% of utility stocks, 40% of real estate.”

This abuse of truth reminds me of Planned Parenthood’s claim about women being unable to divorce abusive husbands. In 1851, California enacted divorce laws that allowed divorce for reasons of “impotence, adultery, extreme cruelty, desertion or neglect, habitual intemperance, fraud, and conviction for a felony.” Until 1873, Indiana had one of the most liberal divorce laws in the nation as people flocked to the state to separate their union, for nearly any reason.

Lying is endemic in the abortion industry. It cannot possibly justify profiting from the killing of innocent human life. So it must, through Planned Parenthood, conjure up an alternate universe, untethered by historical veracity or statistical accuracy.

They love touting, too, a (deceptive and sloppy) 2013 WSJ/NBC poll that found “7 in 10” supported keeping Roe. What they fail to mention is that in the same poll, on Question #20, when asked about whether they “approve or disapprove the Roe versus Wade U.S. Supreme Court Decision”, 41% (the largest percentage) didn’t know enough to have an opinion. In other words, they didn’t KNOW what the ruling was. The poll didn’t help either, because it blatantly misinforms those surveyed on what Roe actually established, which was allowing the killing of an unborn child through the 7 month of pregnancy (the point, determined at that time, of viability). This is how the survey question (#21) was worded, however: “The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?” This is why we can’t trust this poll or Planned Parenthood, but it’s not stopping the entire abortion lobby from using the ludicrous “7 in 10” mantra. It’s easy to fool people into supporting something they know so little about.

The Prolife Movement trusts women enough to present them the whole unvarnished truth. The Radiance Foundation is passionately committed, like so many other like-minded abolitionists, to illuminate the Truth. Abortion profiteers’ revisionist history doesn’t change the urgent needs of the present. Women facing unplanned pregnancies need honesty, not hucksters who send people on their way before they realize, too late and with deep personal investment, that they’ve been sold a lie.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Donald Trump Names Pro-Life Advocate Kellyanne Conway as Campaign Manager" - 
 Steven Ertelt, Aug 17, 2016;http://www.lifenews.com/2016/08/17/donald-trump-names-pro-life-advocate-kellyanne-conway-as-campaign-manager/ 

#1687 (8/21) SUNDAY SPECIAL - "Faith on the Rise in Nepal - LOVE FOR THE LEAST OF THESE"

"Faith on the Rise in Nepal - LOVE FOR THE LEAST OF THESE" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: May 12, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29278

High in the Himalayas, Christianity is on the rise. And so are religious tensions.

If I asked you to name the places where Christianity is growing the fastest, you, being a well-informed BreakPoint listener, would probably respond “Africa” and/or “China.” And you’d be correct. The explosion of Christianity south of the Sahara is so great that a colleague of mine is surprised whenever he meets a West African immigrant who’s not a believer. And as we previously told you on BreakPoint, Christianity in China is growing so rapidly that, by one scholar’s estimate, there will be more Christians in China than in any other country by 2035.

But there are other, less-known places where the Good News is being heard and received. One of these is Nepal. When Americans think of Nepal—if they ever do—what comes to mind is an exotic blend of the Himalayas, “wind-swept prayer flags,” and temples, lots and lots of Hindu temples, with a few Buddhist stupas thrown in for good measure.

Until recently, that would have accurately summed up Nepal’s religious scene. In 1951, Nepal’s census showed no—that would be zero—Christians in the country. Ten years later, it showed just 458. Forty years later, the number had risen to 102,000 and ten years later, i.e., in 2011, it had risen to 375,000. What’s more, according to a report by the International Institute for Religious Freedom, Nepalese Christian leaders believe that this last figure underestimates the number of Christian by a factor of six: instead of 375,000 Christians there are closer to 2.3 million.

That would put the percentage of Christians at nearly 10 percent and rising, as opposed to the government’s claimed 1.5 percent. While Nepal is officially a secular country, it has an overwhelming Hindu majority that, historically, has tolerated a small Buddhist minority that poses no threat to the country’s Hindu identity.

By way of protecting this Hindu identity, Nepal’s interim constitution states that “no person shall be entitled to convert another person from one religion to another and shall not take actions or behave in a way that would create disturbance in another's religion.” This of course effectively outlaws evangelism. Yet Nepalese are converting to Christianity in large numbers.

Part of the reason is that the law is difficult to enforce. A larger part is that Christians have stepped into areas of need that neither the government nor the Hindu majority can or even will serve. As is the case in India, many of the converts to Christianity come from the lower castes. Even though, as in India, discrimination on the basis of caste is illegal, centuries, if not millennia, of custom and practice aren’t reversed by the action of a parliament sitting in the capital.

What makes a difference in the lives of these people is other people whose own faith not only rejects the idea of caste but also insists that in ministering to the “least of these,” they are ministering to God himself.

In yet another parallel to India, Nepalese Hindu activists aren’t pleased by the results. So much so that they may be willing to manipulate census figures.

What’s happening in Nepal is good news, indeed. It’s also a reminder than Islam does not have a monopoly restricting religious freedom, especially when it comes to Christians. Recently, a Lutheran pastor was found murdered in the Indian state of Jharkhand. His death is believed to be a part of a larger pattern of anti-Christian violence by Hindu nationalists.

So, in addition to thanking God for the spread of the good news to unlikely places, please keep these vulnerable brethren of ours in prayer.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"Why Nepal Has One of The World's Fastest-Growing Christian Populations" - Danielle Preiss | NPR.org | February 3, 2016; http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/03/463965924/why-nepal-has-one-of-the-worlds-fastest-growing-christian-populations

"Christianity facing threat of being rendered illegal under Nepal's new constitution" - Rio Ribaya | Christianitytoday.com | August 11, 2015; http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christianity.facing.threat.of.being.rendered.illegal.under.nepals.new.constitution/61589.htm

"Christians become target for attacks in tribal Jharkhand" - Bhopal, India | ucanews.com | May 9, 2016; http://www.ucanews.com/news/christians-become-target-for-attacks-in-tribal-jharkhand/75986

"Why Is Christianity Thriving in Nepal?" - Jo Anne Lyon | ChristianPost.com | March 3, 2016; http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-is-christianity-thriving-in-nepal-158745/

"Hindu extremists focus on Christian influence in Nepal" - Ruth Kramer | Mission Network News | October 12, 2015; https://www.mnnonline.org/news/hindu-extremists-focus-on-christian-influence-in-nepal/

#1686 (8/20) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Runner Sarah Brown Sacrificed Olympic Dreams and Rejected Abortion to Become a Mom"

"RUNNER SARAH BROWN SACRIFICED OLYMPIC DREAMS AND REJECTED ABORTION TO BECOME A MOM"- Sarah Stites, Aug 17, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/08/17/runner-sarah-brown-sacrificed-olympic-dreams-and-rejected-abortion-to-become-a-mom/ [AS I SEE IT: Thank God at least someone in the media chose to share this courageous story of selflessness. Now...where was the rest of the mainstream media? Was this woman's CHOICE not the kind of choice they like to promote among women, ie career and self over anything (or ANYONE) else? What do you think? - Stan]

Women’s magazines are notoriously pro-choice. Therefore, when the tweet below appeared in my feed this morning, I thought I knew what to expect.

Abortion seemed liked a logical answer. After all, in 2014, senior editor of Elle Magazine Laurie Abraham penned a piece entitled “Abortion: Not Easy, Not Sorry.” In it, she wrote: “Nearly one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45. Why are we so afraid to talk about it—or to acknowledge that our lives would have been so much less than we hoped for without it? Why are we pressured to feel that we should regret our choice, and that there’s something wrong with us if we don’t?”

This kind of content had shaped my expectations. In fact, Abraham’s article could have been a perfect segue for the tale of an empowered woman who aborted the baby that got in the way of her Olympic dreams. Warily, I clicked on the link.

But what I got was a lovely surprise. The article detailed the inspirational story of Sarah Brown, an elite runner who discovered, while at the peak of her Olympic trials training, that she was pregnant—but she never even considered abortion.

“I was at top of my game and then, all the sudden, it was like I fell off a cliff. I felt so fatigued in my races, like I felt like I was running through sand. I couldn’t figure out what was wrong. By the time I found out I was pregnant, it was a lot of mixed emotions.” But she was excited too. “This is my first child and my husband and I did plan on having kids at some point, it just happened a bit earlier than we were expecting!” she told Elle’s Kristina Rodulfo.

In an interview with Alison Wade of Runner’s World, Brown revealed that she wanted to keep her child from the moment she heard the news. “It was one of those things where I wasn’t ready to have a kid, but also, as soon as I found out I was pregnant, I wasn’t ready for the thought of losing that kid. As terrifying as it was to become a mom, I knew that that was what I wanted,” she said.

In the ultimate display of true feminist choice, “she set her sights on both achieving her career goals and having her child,” Rodulfo wrote. The decision was a family affair. Brown’s husband and coach, Darren, was literally with her every step of the way. He often trained alongside Sarah, donning a weight vest to truly empathize. “I don’t know if I could have done a lot of the things I did if [my coach wasn’t my husband],” Sarah told Rodulfo, “just from a standpoint of him seeing me every day, working very closely with me, knowing how I’m feeling.”

What gave Brown these strong convictions and determination? Her bio on Athlete Biz gives a clue: “Sarah believes that her running talent is a gift from God and needs to be used for something more than her own personal gains.”

This summer, she had an opportunity to put her beliefs into practice. Although Brown was slated to place at the Rio Olympics, she never made it past the trials. But her inspirational reaction to the disappointment revealed her strong faith.“Today wasn’t the fairytale ending you dream about. But then again, this journey never really was about an ending, it’s a beginning,” she posted on Instagram. “A new chapter as a family of three. Thanks for all the support ❤ & you can bet you will continue to see this mama run #runmamarun”

#1685 (8/19) "The Facts Show Louisiana’s Floods NOT Caused by Man-Made Climate Change"

"THE FACTS SHOW LOUISIANA'S FLOODS NOT CAUSED BY MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE" - Nicolas Loris / August 17, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/17/the-facts-show-louisianas-floods-not-caused-by-man-made-climate-change/?

The U.S. Coast Guard rescues locals from flood water Sunday in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Photo: Brandon Giles/Coast Guard/UPI/Newscom)

Is man-made global warming to blame for the heavy rainfall and flooding in Louisiana? Former Vice President Al Gore sure thinks so. And The New York Times ran a story with the title “Flooding in the South Looks a Lot Like Climate Change.” But the climate research suggests otherwise.

Speaking in Houston to train more grassroots activists on global warming, Gore said: “These kinds of record downpours—that’s one of the manifestations of the climate crisis.” The Times article led with: “Climate change is never going to announce itself by name. But this is what we should expect it to look like.”

Torrential rain and severe flooding tragically claimed at least 11 lives in southern Louisiana and affected more than 40,000 homes. Emergency responders and other volunteers rescued more than 30,000 people and 1,000 pets. 

But is man-made global warming to blame? Climatologists Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger point to two recent studies that indicate not. In one study, two researchers at the University of Iowa specializing in hydroscience and engineering conclude that “over the last 65 years, the stronger storms are not getting stronger, but a larger number of heavy precipitation events have been observed.”

The larger number of precipitation events, however, were not a result of burning of conventional resources of energy such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The study finds that “the climate variability of both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can exert a large control on the precipitation frequency and magnitude over the contiguous USA.”

In other words, changes in the ocean are the reason for these increases in precipitation.

Another study, published by the American Meteorological Society, analyzes model projections and actual observed trends in heavy precipitation throughout the U.S. The lead author is Karin van der Wiel of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Van der Wiel and her team concluded “no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record.”

Knappenberger also points to a NOAA study from June 1978, when the media and climate concern centered on the next ice age and global cooling. As he puts it: “Lower Louisiana is a climatologically prime location for massive precipitation amounts.”

What about globally? After all, man-made warming is supposed to be about global warming, right?
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found evidence for increases, decreases, and no trend at all in flood activity or severity. The report says:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale. Trends in local events, such as hail and thunderstorms, were also inconclusive.

So whatever your theory on climate change and floods is, the U.N.’s climate change panel has studies to back you up—which suggests a lot of uncertainty in the field.

Here’s the real kicker, though: Even if it were definitively conclusive that man-made carbon dioxide emissions contributed directly to more intense and more frequent storms, the Obama administration’s regulatory climate agenda would be a costly non-solution. The higher energy prices paid by Americans from shuttering coal-fired power plants, regulations on oil and gas extraction, and emissions restrictions on vehicles and trucks will be for naught. In fact, cutting off virtually all economic activity and bringing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down to zero would moderate warming by only 0.137 degree Celsius over the next 84 years.

For the Al Gores of the world, it’s convenient to point to the Louisiana floods, Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, or the tornado in Joplin, Missouri, as evidence of man-made global warming. The facts, on the other hand, are inconvenient.

[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.

"I’m From Louisiana. Here’s the Flooding Story the Media Should Cover" - Norbert Michel / @norbertjmichel / August 18, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/18/im-from-louisiana-heres-the-flooding-story-the-media-should-cover/?

#1684 (8/18) "How to Talk About Gun Rights With Gun Control Advocates"

"HOW TO TALK ABOUT GUN RIGHTS WITH GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES" - Beverly Hallberg / August 17, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/17/how-to-talk-about-gun-rights-with-gun-control-advocates/?

Talking with someone who disagrees about gun rights can be tricky. (Photo: Jim Urquhart /Reuters/Newscom)

Guns are a tricky topic. Very rarely do you find voters ambivalent about gun violence, gun safety, etc. Someone is either strongly pro-gun rights or pro-gun control, which makes a civil conversation difficult to start or maintain. But the solution isn’t to avoid the topic.

As I mentioned in my last column, you may be the only conservative who tries to challenge a liberal’s worldview. No pressure. It may sound like a heavy weight to bear, but not if you’re prepared. So, let’s talk guns.

Here are a few strategies that work well:

     1.) Common Ground
           Even though the other side often demonizes those who support gun rights, it’s important that you not return the favor. Instead, work hard to find common ground on such a hostile topic. You will develop instant goodwill and buy some credibility as you support a viewpoint the media often finds “crazy.”

So, what’s the common ground? Whether pro-gun rights or pro-gun control, both sides are motivated by one general desire: safety. The goal is to keep people safe. One side aims to do so via tougher restrictions and therefore fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens; the other side aims to do so via looser restrictions and therefore more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The goal is the same—prevent future gun violence. The means to that end is the sticking point.

Start by acknowledging your shared goal.

     2.) Examples
          Personal anecdotes and stories can go a long way to diffuse a hostile topic like gun ownership. Humanizing your position will only strengthen your argument and paint a clearer picture of what you believe.
         For example, when I discuss the importance of gun rights, I like to highlight that I am a woman who values safety in an often unsafe city like the District of Columbia.  Since the police can’t be everywhere at all times, it’s important for someone like me to be able to protect myself.
        Another way to lend credibility to your argument is to highlight real-life, recent, or current events where having a gun could’ve saved lives. The shootings at both the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and the Bataclan theater in Paris are examples of long-lasting hostage situations that could’ve ended much sooner if someone on the scene had a gun.
      [Also] Don’t just tell your audience that more shootings happen in gun-free zones, cite examples to show when and how.

3.) Words

Sadly, in the age of the Kardashians, “Bachelor in Paradise,” and Snapchat, most Americans don’t know what the Second Amendment is, or even understand the phrase “right to bear arms.” Instead, use words that are easy to comprehend and evoke more emotion like “the right to protect yourself.”

Also, you can’t go wrong stealing the other side’s language like “fair” or “choice” (i.e.: “As a woman, it is important that I have the same rights to choose to defend myself…”).

In summary, find common ground by talking about this issue from a safety perspective, use real-life examples, and steal the left’s language to frame your narrative.

So, bite the bullet (pun intended) and speak up.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Beverly Hallberg is the president of District Media Group.

#1683 (8/17) "3 Ways to Talk About Conservatism With a Liberal"

"3 WAYS TO TALK ABOUT CONSERVATISM WITH A LIBERAL" - Beverly Hallberg / August 02, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/02/3-ways-to-talk-about-conservatism-with-a-liberal/? [AS I SEE IT: The following tips for engaging in a conversation with a liberal can be very helpful esp. when that person may make us feel intimidated. As we come into the home stretch of this election year, helping those who hold to liberal/progressive views to thoughtfully consider the conservative view rather than simply dismiss it out of hand may go a long way to causing that person to give second thoughts to how they vote this November. - Stan]

When millennials are starting more businesses than the baby-boomer generation there’s reason to question their dedication to socialism and an opportunity to use their entrepreneurism as a gateway to talking about free enterprise.(Photo: Frédéric Cirou/F. Cirou / Altopress/Newscom)

As the mantra of “Don’t discuss politics or religion” repeats like a drumbeat in your head, you settle on “How about that game?” Your desperate search for the safest question to ask a colleague as you wait for the morning coffee to brew is understandable. But you can find a way.

If conservatives refrain from engaging in the narrative, we let the media and politicians (ahem, President Barack Obama) paint us as crazy people who cling to “guns or religion.” That’s where this column comes in—a place to help you talk to the people in your life (think neighbors, co-workers, family, friends) about conservative issues. Trust me, it’s possible.

While I will explore a wide variety of relevant topics in the weeks to come, I’d like to start with something basic and broad: the term “conservative.”

Connecting - If you look at The Heritage Foundation’s definition, you find that conservatism is five pillars: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. So, there’s your answer, right? Just memorize and repeat when someone wants to know why you are conservative. Wrong.

There is no faster way to kill a conversation than to categorize your perspective like it’s a to-do list. When talking about any issue, you have to connect with the other person’s interests. And that starts by being a good listener.

If you find your colleague doesn’t give much insight into her ideology, ask questions. Find out what makes her tick by starting a conversation about her day at work or what’s going on in the news. It’s amazing how much you learn when you ask a question and then … stop talking.

Comment - Once you gain insight into what issues someone cares about, the real work begins. You now have a blueprint for how to approach the conversation in a way that resonates with him or her, not you. For example, if you find that your colleague talks about how expensive it is to run her side business, the free enterprise pillar is a good area to explore. Now, you’re off to the races.

Here are a few strategies that work well: 

1. Common Ground
     Don’t underestimate the power of establishing common ground. Doing so makes you seem reasonable and can go a long way in diffusing any tension or unwillingness to hear you out. If you’re in agreement with someone on the goal, like his business succeeding, he is more likely to stick around and listen to your solution.
2. Examples
     Don’t underestimate the power of relatable examples, which can help people visualize your point. Often, the conservative principles we talk about can seem very abstract. Examples put issues into context, especially when you can illustrate a point using a reference from their daily lives. For instance, if you want to promote free enterprise, talk about all the regulations their business currently faces and how there would be significantly fewer if free enterprise was more valued by our lawmakers.
3. Words
     Finally, you have to use the right words. Don’t even think about using the term “free enterprise.” Instead, steal a page from the liberals’ playbook: use emotion to push an agenda. Own words like “fair” or “choice,” and statements like “you know better than a bureaucrat in D.C.” Using emotional language will set you up for success.

Before you think that attempting a conversation is hopeless because “you don’t know how liberal my co-workers are,” keep in mind that people will listen if you talk about issues that matter to them. If done well, it’s possible they won’t recognize that you are approaching the conversation from a conservative perspective.

Take millennials. You may think it’s hopeless to talk to that generation about free enterprise since so many view themselves as socialists. But when millennials are starting more businesses than the baby-boomer generation there’s reason to question their dedication to socialism (Do they really know what socialism is?) and an opportunity to use their entrepreneurism as a gateway to talking about free enterprise.

So, talk to a liberal today. Employ the strategies we just discussed and see if you can have a meaningful conversation about conservatism on her terms. Identify her interests, choose one of the five pillars that align with her interests, and use examples.

No pressure, but you may be the only conservative that tries to challenge [his or] her world view. And if we are going to preserve the American dream, it’s going to take all of us doing our part by first talking to the people we know.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Beverly Hallberg is the president of District Media Group.