Sunday, December 31, 2017

#2183 (12/31) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "The Importance of Good News - Headlines You’re not Hearing"-

"THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD NEWS - HEADLINES YOU'RE NOT  HEARING"- by Eric Metaxas & G. Shane Morris, Breakpoint.org, Dec. 29, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/12/breakpoint-importance-good-news-2/
(This commentary was originally aired September 7, 2017.)

     It’s been a summer of rough news for America. Racism, riots, and political violence. Communities on the Gulf Coast continue wading through the devastation of hurricane Harvey, and now another storm is bearing down on Florida. We have plenty of reasons to be praying and doing all we can to alleviate suffering. There’s cause for grief about the news—but not for pessimism.

Writing at The Guardian, Oliver Burkeman suggests that despite a dragging civil war in Syria, heart-rending photos of drowned refugees, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling, disasters, terrorist attacks, and racial violence, the world is objectively better now than it’s ever been.

Hard to believe? Well, here are the facts: Swedish historian Mark Norberg breaks down global indicators of human flourishing into nine categories: food, sanitation, life expectancy, poverty, violence, the state of the environment, literacy, freedom, equality, and the conditions of childhood. And in nearly all of these categories, we’ve seen vast improvement in my lifetime.
    Despite the fact that nine out of ten Americans say worldwide poverty is holding steady or worsening, the percentage of people on this planet who live on less than two dollars a day—what the United Nation’s defines as “extreme poverty”—has fallen below ten percent, which is the lowest it’s ever been.
    The scourge of child mortality is also at a record low. Fifty percent fewer children under five die today than did thirty years ago.
    Worldwide, 300,000 more people gain access to electricity every day. In 1900, global life expectancy was just 31 years. Today, it’s an impressive 71 years. And violent crime rates in the United States are the lowest they’ve been in half a century.

Nicholas Kristof wasn’t too far afield when he called 2016 “the best year in the history of humanity.” This year may see even more progress.

So why do these cheery pronouncements strike us as inaccurate—even outrageous? Why—according to a recent poll by YouGov—do a vanishingly small six percent of Americans think the world as a whole is becoming a better place?

Burkeman lays much of the blame on the press. Thanks to a 24-hour news cycle that actively seeks out and overplays the worst stories, our perception of the world is skewed. “We are not merely ignorant of the facts,” he writes. “We are actively convinced of depressing ‘facts’ that aren’t true.” And no wonder! It’s hard to sell papers and get Web traffic with good news. No one reports when a plane takes off. They only report when they crash.

But a great deal of the blame for our unjustifiably gloomy view of the world also falls on our shoulders. Quite simply, we often enjoy being angry about the state of the world, especially when it allows us to blame someone else. We are addicted to news-induced anger.

That’s why it’s so important—while acknowledging the desperate evil and suffering around us—to appreciate the good news, the progress, and the things we have to celebrate. After all, how can we truly comprehend what’s wrong with the world if we don’t recognize when something is going right?

War, famine, disease, and hatred should all remind us that God’s world, which He created and pronounced “very good,” is broken, and it’s our fault. But here’s the real comfort: It’s still—as the hymn says—our Father’s world. Let us therefore never forget that “though the wrong seems oft so strong God is the ruler yet.”

As Christians, we know where history is headed, and we know how the story ends—with the redemption and restoration of all things. We who have the good news should be the first to recognize all good news, not in spite of, but in the midst of the bad.

[bold,italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Philippians 4:8
"Is the world really better than ever?" Oliver Burkeman | The Guardian | July 28, 2017; https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/28/is-the-world-really-better-than-ever-the-new-optimists
"American Pessimism: Only 6 Percent Think the World Is Getting Better"Ronald Bailey | Reason.com | July. 7, 2016; http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/07/american-pessimism-only-6-percent-think

Saturday, December 30, 2017

#2182 (12/30) PRO-LIFE SAT: "The Case for Life is Strong"

"THE CASE FOR LIFE IS STRONG" - by: John Stonestreet &  G. Shane Morris; Breakpoint.org, Dec. 27, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/12/pro-life-google-2/
Is it possible to argue effectively for the rights of the unborn to a secular audience? Just Google it!

Many were surprised when Tim Keller was invited to give a Google Talk back in 2008 about his book, “The Reason for God.” The tech giant, like most denizens of Silicon Valley, has a reputation for being socially progressive and devoted to a set of values that are, shall we say, different than those of conservative Christians. By inviting him to talk to its staff, Google signaled an openness, not only to Christian ideas, but to real and healthy dialogue. Keller was even invited to speak a second time at Google. But recently, an even more surprising Google Talk speaker than Keller visited their headquarters.

Stephanie Gray is a Canadian pro-life apologist. She travels the world making the case for the humanity and personhood of the unborn. She’s co-founder of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and now leads a ministry called Love Unleashes Life.
     Her talk at Google just a few days ago wasn’t just unprecedented, it was amazing. In fact, within 24 hours, it surpassed the popularity of another talk by Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards.

Stephanie opened by comparing the story of Captain Sully Sullenberger, the man who successfully landed a disabled airliner on the Hudson River in 2009, refusing to evacuate until all his passengers were safe, with the captain of the Italian Costa Concordia ship who quickly jumped ship after it wrecked.
     We rightly admire people like “Sully,” Stephanie said, because of three qualities. First, their willingness to sacrifice for others, their perspective when faced with hardship, and their commitment to do the right thing, even when it means being the last one out of a sinking airplane.
    But abortion flies in the face of these admirable and heroic qualities. It promises an easy way out—erasing the consequences of sex as if nothing—or no one—ever happened. Stephanie thinks we all know better at a deep level. And she challenged her audience with story after story of women who chose life, even in the toughest of circumstances, and who don’t regret it.

Like my friend, Scott Klusendorf at the Life Training Institute, Stephanie knows that the arguments about choice, bodily autonomy, financial hardship, or special cases are just distractions from the central question that matters the most: Is the unborn
 human?
    At Google, she marshaled scientific evidence to show that our humanity and individuality are fully present from the earliest stages of gestation. She showed that an unborn baby’s moral value is determined solely by the type of thing it is, not its size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.
    And most importantly, she appealed to her audience’s moral imagination, demonstrating why the others-centered love required to choose life is the kind of thing we admire, the kind of thing we know is right, and the kind of choice no one regrets.

We can learn a thing or two from Stephanie. First, the case for life is strong. Her message was one that even an overwhelmingly secular and progressive audience could understand. She made non-religious arguments—what Chuck Colson would call prudential arguments—for the rights of the unborn. And then she employed an arsenal of stories that reinforce life in a way philosophical reasoning by itself never could. She even appealed to Google’s corporate motto, “Do the right thing,” adding: “even when it’s hard.”

And the second thing we can learn is that the moral realities that Christians believe aren’t just true and defensible. They’re better! So many in our culture these days are wondering not only if Christian truth claims are true, but if they’re good.

We can and should know how to make the case for life just like Stephanie. Come to BreakPoint.org for a link to her outstanding talk, and to find the book that taught me to make the case for life by Scott Klusendorf, called The Case for Life.


(This commentary originally aired July 3, 2017.)

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES We highly recommend you watch the Youtube video of Stephanie Gray’s talk at Google. It will equip you and encourage you to “make the case for life.” Click here for a link to her presentation.
"Abortion: From Controversy to Civility"Stephanie Gray | Talks at Google | Youtube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzzfSq2DEc4
The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture- Scott Klusendorf; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=1433503204 

Friday, December 29, 2017

#2181 (12/29) "Cutting Through the Media’s Falsehoods About ‘Dreamers’"

"CUTTING THROUGH THE MEDIA'S FALSEHOODS ABOUT "DREAMERS" - Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / December 28, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/28/cutting-through-the-medias-falsehoods-about-dreamers
A protester partakes in a demonstration in support of DACA outside the U.S Capitol. (Photo: Alex Edelman/Zuma Press/Newscom)

When members of Congress battled over the budget, some threatened to block funding unless Congress provided amnesty to illegal alien Dreamers who benefited from President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump announced he is ending.

Conscientious members of Congress should not give in to this threat. Amnesty will encourage even more illegal immigration—just as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act did.
That bill provided citizenship to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Yet by 1995, another 5.7 million illegal aliens were residing in the U.S. Many of them crossed the border to join their newly legalized friends and family. Others, no doubt, believed that since the U.S. provided amnesty once, it would do so again.

However Congress decides to deal with Dreamers, it should be based on the real demographics of the DACA populace, not the glamorized image typically presented by the media. Watching television reports concerning Dreamers, one would think that the DACA program applied only to college-educated immigrants who were just a few years old when their parents brought them into the country illegally. We are led to believe that most are so fully Americanized that they would now have trouble speaking their native language and are all but ignorant of their birth countries’ cultural norms. Thus, we are supposed to believe returning them to their native lands would be a cruel hardship.

In fact, many DACA beneficiaries came here as teenagers. All were eligible for the program as long as they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday. By that time, there is no doubt that they spoke the language of their native countries fluently and knew their culture intimately.
    DACA had no requirement of English fluency, as evidenced by the application form that had a space to list the translator used to complete the form.
    The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.” Unfortunately, many Dreamers are poorly educated. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education, even though a majority are now adults. And while military service could also qualify an illegal alien for DACA, out of the current 690,000 DACA beneficiaries, only 900 are serving in the military.
   The Obama administration did not check the background of each DACA beneficiary, despite a requirement that they have no felony convictions and pose no threat to national security. Only a few randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted. This may explain why, by August this year, more than 2,100 DACA beneficiaries had had their eligibility pulled because of criminal convictions and gang affiliationEven if a random background investigation produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA if he wasn’t convicted.

Thus, it seems that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries have serious limitations in their education, work experience, and English fluency. What’s the likelihood that they’ll be able to function in American society without being substantial burdens to U.S. taxpayers?

Without changing the sponsorship rules, any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit beyond the immediate DACA beneficiaries. Giving lawful status to Dreamers will allow them and their families to profit from illegal conduct.
    History shows that providing amnesty will attract even more illegal immigration and won’t solve our enforcement problems. Congress shouldn’t even consider such relief unless and until we have a sustained period of concentrated enforcement that stems illegal entry and reduces the illegal alien population in the U.SCongress should instead concentrate on providing the resources needed to enforce our immigration laws and secure our border.

(Originally published by The Washington Times.)

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.

"DACA Is Not What the Democrats Say It Is. Here Are the Facts." - Hans von Spakovsky / December 04, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/04/daca-not-democrats-say-facts

Thursday, December 28, 2017

#2180 (12/28) "A Frosty Reception To Trump's [Call for] Prayer"

"A FROSTY RECEPTION TO TRUMP'S [CALL FOR] PRAYER" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Dec. 21, 2017; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20171221/frosty-reception [NOTE: Go to http://www.cbn.com/tv/5688418423001?mobile=false - to see video of prayer.]
If you thought tax reform terrified liberals, try praying about it! During [last Wednesday's]  historic votes, Donald Trump sent the Left into a full-on panic by pausing a moment in his cabinet meeting to thank God for their pending success. Before he turned the floor over to Secretary Ben Carson, the president looked at the media in the room and told them they could stay if they wanted to. After all, he joked, "[Y]ou need the prayer more than I do. I think you may be the only ones. Maybe a good solid prayer, and they'll be honest then. Is that possible?"

Well, the media was honest all right -- but only about their distress. Most liberal reporters were -- if not alarmed, then completely baffled -- by Carson's appeal. MSNBC led the parade of the perplexed, calling the display "unusual" and "striking." ThinkProgress's overreaction was almost comical. The group's Aaron Rupar described what has always been a normal expression of faith in the White House (until recently) as "creepy" and "cult-like." In some pockets of the press, the prayer overshadowed the real news itself: that Congress had passed the most meaningful tax overhaul in 30 years.

Meanwhile, Dr. Carson's appeal was hardly the stuff of controversy. He thanked God for our freedom and the opportunities we, as Americans, have been given, and continued:
     "We thank you for the president and for cabinet members who are courageous, who are willing to face the winds of controversy in order to provide a better future for those who come after."
    "We're thankful for the unity in Congress that has presented an opportunity for our economy to expand so that we can fight the corrosive debt that has been destroying our future. And we hope that that unity will spread even beyond party lines so that people will recognize that we have a nation worth saving. And recognize that nations divided against themselves cannot stand."
    "In this time of discord, distrust and dishonesty, we ask that you will give us a spirit of gratitude, compassion and common sense. And give us the wisdom to be able to guide this great nation in the future we ask in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Since the birth of our nation, we've have had presidents who prayed and called the nation to prayer -- including Democrats! Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 prayer was so significant that he put it on the White House's official Christmas card. "Not only did we have prayer in meetings like this," David Barton told me on Wednesday's "Washington Watch," "but by the time you get to 1815, there had been 1,400 government-issued calls to prayer for the nation, so that's not just prayer in Cabinet meetings. That's calling the whole nation to prayer..."
    And this isn't just a colonial times phenomenon. In case MSNBC has forgotten, David pointed out, "Just on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we don't do anything in the House and Senate without having someone who is paid to pray open things up with prayer. So why they would think that's unusual in a Cabinet meeting is pretty much indicative of their lack of polish on everything else." Although, he went on, "I guess if your framework is based on the last eight years [under Barack Obama], then yes, it would be unusual and striking."

For almost a decade, Obama treated faith like a toxin that needed neutralizing. Christianity was his favorite target, and he spent eight years training Americans to treat religious expression like public enemy number one. Now, David points out, Donald Trump is "making it mainstream again. And this is really bothering [the media], because they're no longer the sole outlet for where people get their information. And so because of what happened today, it allows us to [hear] things that they'd just assume people not know..."

In all honesty, the Left's reaction only shows their own hostility to faith. Liberals preach inclusion, but when it comes right down to it, they don't believe in any of it. Instead, they mock the White House, knowing deep down that the real battle isn't over Christmas or Cabinet prayers. The real war is over Christianity -- and for the first time in a long time, they're losing.

 [bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

#2179 (12/27) "Time to Defund the United Nations"

"TIME TO DEFUND THE UNITED NATIONS" Ben Shapiro: Dec 27, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2017/12/27/time-to-defund-the-united-nations-n2427203 [AS I SEE IT: The obvious question seems to be: In what way - at least recently if not ever - has the United Nations acted in a way that prevented war and established peace? When has this "united" body accomplish a clear good in the world? I'm waiting but I'm not holding my breath. - Stan]
Last week, Democrats and many in the mainstream media became highly perturbed by the Trump administration's suggestion that the United States might tie continued foreign aid to support for its agenda abroad. Foreign dictators agreed. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spent the last year arresting dissidents, announced, "Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey's democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear."

Herein lies the great irony of the United Nations: While it's the Mos Eisley of international politics -- a hive of scum and villainy -- and it votes repeatedly to condemn the United States and Israel, the tyrannies that constitute the body continue to oppress their own peoples. Among those who voted last week to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem were North Korea, Iran, Yemen and Venezuela. Why exactly should the United States ever take advice from those nations seriously?
    We shouldn't. And we should stop sending cash to an organization that operates as a front for immoral agenda items.

The United Nations spends the vast majority of its time condemning Israel: According to UN Watch, the U.N. Human Rights Council issued 135 resolutions from June 2006 to June 2016, 68 of which were against Israel; the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization only passes resolutions against Israel; and the U.N. General Assembly issued 97 resolutions from 2012 through 2015, 83 of which targeted Israel.

Meanwhile, the U.N. has done nearly nothing with regard to Syria. It has instead suggested that Israel turn over the Golan Heights to the Syrian regime. The U.N. can't even successfully prevent the slaughter of the Rohingya in Myanmar. But they certainly have something say about whether the United States ought to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

One of the great lies of the Obama administration was that diplomacy is a foreign policy. We often heard from it that the only two alternatives were diplomacy and war. That was the stated reason for pursuing a one-sided nuclear deal with Iran that left Iran with burgeoning regional power and legitimacy. "What? Do you want a war or something?" it asked. 

But the moment that the Trump administration uses tools of diplomacy, including financial pressure, to achieve American ends, the left complains. Would it prefer war? Diplomacy is a tool, not a foreign policy, and the use of diplomacy to pressure other nations to follow our lead is not only smart but also necessary. That is why the Trump administration was exactly right to negotiate a $285 million cut to the U.N.'s budget. Now we ought to slash our contributions to the counterproductive organization, since we pay one-fifth of the total bill.

The U.N. has always been a foolish fantasy, a League of Nations knockoff that's been about as productive and twice as irritating. It's an outmoded organization that's outlived whatever small usefulness it once had. There's no reason for us to continue cutting checks to prop up regimes that condemn us publicly for exercising the most basic standards of morality.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

#2178 (12/26) "Nikki Haley's Finest Hour"

"NIKKI HALEY'S FINEST HOUR"Guy Benson: Dec 22, 2017; https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/22/video-netanyahu-thanks-america-praises-nikki-haleys-un-votes-and-powerful-speech-n2425903 [AS I SEE IT: 1) I SO agree that Nikki Haley as UN ambassador is the best appointment that President Trump has made next to Supreme Court justice Gorsuch. She has such "spunk" and a no-nonsense approach to diplomacy that is very refreshing. I cheer every time I hear about something  she has spoken on. 2) Just last night (12/25),  ambassador Haley - ie, the U.S. - announced that it is cutting the money it gives to the United Nations (note the link at the end of this article). It's a great START! - Stan]
     Aside from the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Justice Scalia on the US Supreme Court, I'm not sure I've ever been any prouder of the Trump administration than I was during Nikki Haley's scathing and righteous speech before the UN General Assembly [last] Thursday.  (Katie wrote up Haley's remarks [https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/21/haley-at-un-n2425682] and the subsequent vote
[https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/21/here-is-the-list-of-countries-that-just-voted-against-the-united-states-at-the-un-n2425807]) in which the large majority of the UN's "community of nations" purported to declare the United States' decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel (which it is) 'null and void.'  "Your empty, symbolic votes to single out America for our unwavering support for a country you loathe mean nothing," Haley warned delegates. "We've made our decision as a sovereign nation, and there's nothing you can do about it -- but we will remember your actions the next time you come, hat in hand, begging us for more money." Here's the video, in case you missed Amb. Haley's tour de force: [https://usun.state.gov/remarks/8232]

   "... To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world...When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected. In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent. We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways."
     "Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today...The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit. America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do. And it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that. But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered."

     Contrast that moral clarity with the shameful and craven actions of the previous administration, and the gratuitous and disloyal votes of normal US allies.  Good for her.  Israel was one of just eight nations who joined the United States on this vote, with a few dozen more abstaining.  Haley is hosting a 'friendship reception' for the nations that chose not to vote against the US on this issue  Israel's Prime Minister tweeted a short video thanking America and Amb. Haley for their leadership:
     Benjamin Netanyahu✔ @netanyahu
Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you, Nikki Haley.

     Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  That's a fact.  It will remain a fact. It has been US policy to recognize that fact since 1995, reaffirmed overwhelmingly by Congress this past summer.  After campaigning to relocate America's embassy accordingly, other presidents eventually chose to seek waivers to the law; President Trump chose to follow through on his pledge and not evade compliance any longer.  A sovereign nation made a decision to uphold its own policy -- established by the elected representatives of a free people -- and to acknowledge empirical reality.  For that transgression, the pitiful and feckless United Nations voted to condemn that sovereign nation.  Americans should not forget Amb. Haley's leadership on this issue, nor should we forget the countries who sided with "the jackals" over the Middle East's only liberal democracy and United States of America.  Between her General Assembly address and her defiant Security Council veto, this week has been Nikki Haley's finest hour:
    Nikki Haley✔@nikkihaley
The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy.

     Thank you, Madame Ambassador.  As for the very first point she made at her speech, here is CNN's Jake Tapper calling out the mind-boggling hypocrisy and perverse priorities of the United Nations.  His upbraiding of certain member nations is excellent, but keep watching until the very end.  The statistic he shares about UN resolutions is really extraordinary.  Not all criticism of Israel policy is "anti-Semitic," obviously, but Tapper heavily hints that there's something dark behind the grossly disproportionate targeting of Israel by the UN.  He's right:
 
Noah Pollak @NoahPollak Watch this excellent @jaketapper comment on the UN General Assembly vote against the US and Israel today. The same General Assembly that systematically ignores virtually every genuine human rights atrocity in the world. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"Nikki Haley is Throwing a Party For Pro-America Countries After Jerusalem Vote"Katie Pavlich: Dec 22, 20187; https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/22/nikki-haley-throws-a-party-for-proamerica-countries-after-jerusalem-vote-n2426202
"It’s Official: Nikki Haley Announces Cuts to the UN Budget"Katie Pavlichlich: Dec 25, 2017; https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/12/25/its-official-nikki-haley-announces-cuts-to-the-un-budget-n2426933

Monday, December 25, 2017

# 2177 (12/25) CHRISTMAS: "A Celebration of Life"

CHRISTMAS, 2017

"A CELEBRATION OF LIFE" - David Limbaugh : Dec 22, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2017/12/22/a-celebration-of-life-n2425912
People often lament that in our celebration of Christmas, we tend to lose sight of its true meaning. Not to be a contrarian, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

    At Christmastime, we celebrate family, giving, tradition, friendship, community, love, goodwill and so much else that is great and good about human existence. These sublime experiences and institutions are wonderful precisely because our savior, in whom goodness inheres, created them.

With proper godly perspective, delighting in these glorious gifts actually enhances our focus on God; it doesn't diminish it. Of course, we must discipline ourselves, if it doesn't occur naturally, to give thanks to God and to consciously savor him and his gift of life to us.

This time of year, we celebrate Christ's incarnation -- his birth, his earthly example and his miracles and teachings. We humbly bow at the Crucifixion, marvel at the magisterial Resurrection and gratefully acknowledge our regeneration salvation in him. We cherish that he is truth, the judge and the very giver of life.
    Unlike the mythical god of deism, our God did not create us and then callously abandon us to a desperate state of sinfulness, misery and suffering. He is not only the Creator but also the sustainer of the universe. The writer of Hebrews assures us, "He upholds the universe by the word of His power." The Apostle Paul proclaims, "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
    Though God gave us the freedom to sin and mankind subsequently fell, Christ became sin for us, thereby conquering sin and death. He offers us redemption and eternal life in his presence.

It is fitting that we celebrate Christ's birth, because his redeeming work on our behalf -- his death on the Cross and thus our salvation -- could not have been accomplished without his incarnation. It is all part of a piece. If he had merely been in form a human but in substance only God, his suffering, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection would have been illusory.
    Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Jesus wasn't just the greatest of all human prophets. He was fully God and fully man, a truth that Christians believed from the beginning and that the Council of Chalcedon formally affirmed in A.D. 451. "Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards His Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards His manhood."

Christianity's critics sometimes question God's permitting human suffering, but the Cross, to paraphrase the late Pastor John Stott, smashes those concerns to smithereens. Christ understands our suffering and even our mundane problems because he became one of us and experienced what we experience. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).

Christ suffered -- so that we can live -- more pain than anyone who has ever existed. It was not only his physical beatings and passion but also his excruciating separation from the Father and his endurance of God's wrath for all of the past, present and future sins of mankind. Moreover, God created us knowing at the time that Christ's human birth and sacrificial death would be necessary. John tells us that Jesus is "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." A greater act of love is inconceivable.   

Having become human and suffering as a human being, Christ is an empathetic, personal God, who is approachable to us and with whom we can have a personal relationship. "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in the time of need" (Hebrews 4:16). 

This Christmas, let's celebrate the wonders of our existence as human beings created in God's image and with the capacity for his love, which we must abundantly share with one another. Let's draw near to his throne of grace, profusely thanking him for the undeserved mercy he gave us and meditating on "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable" (Philippians 4:8).

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

David Limbaugh is the author of the New York Times best-selling book: "Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel;"is brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics who writes engaging columns from a fresh, conservative point of view.

Sunday, December 24, 2017

#2176 (12/24) "Minimalism Isn’t the Key to Christmas"

CHRISTMAS EVE, 2017

"MINIMALISM ISN'T THE KEY TO CHRISTMAS - We need more than anti-consumerism for a healthy Christian holiday." - Jen Pollock Michel;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2017/december/this-christmas-minimalism-isnt-solution.html
  Minimalism Isn’t the Key to Christmas Image: Bernard Bodo / iStock

Three years ago, my husband and I decided that we would no longer travel for Christmas. Our parents, all of them living in the Midwest, were devastated. When we’d moved to Toronto from Chicago, the terms were clear: If we were moving the grandchildren across an international border, we were responsible to bring them home for the holidays. But where was home? Even if our passports declared us strangers, our house in Toronto had begun to feel more like home than the one we had left behind—the one we actually owned.

I’ll be home for Christmas, we sing. And it’s for good reason that Christmas lures us home. As I can attest, waking up in a hotel on Christmas morning and shuffling to the lobby for your first cup of hot coffee does a number on the holiday spirit.

What makes a home a home, then?
    For the past several years, IKEA representatives have traveled across the globe to ask people about their domestic experiences and expectations. In 2016, they visited 12 cities and interviewed 12,000 people; in 2017, they traveled to 22 countries, surveying more than 22,000 people. In the first survey, respondents concluded that a home was composed of four intangibles: comfort, safety, belonging, and love.
    Even if IKEA’s findings (detailed in their annual Life at Home reports) primarily aim to sell us more furniture, lamps, and posters of Paris, they tell us something about the fundamental human longing for home. For Christians, they also illuminate this surprising truth: Neither consumerism nor anti-consumerism defines a true home.
    Roy Langmaid, a psychologist cited in the 2017 IKEA Life at Home Report, talks about home as moderns have come to think of it—as the expression of personal identity. Identity is a narrative, Langmaid says, and home tells part of the story. If we change the objects, we change the story, which is why some of us find it so difficult to get rid of things—so difficult, in fact, that 1 in 10 Americans is paying for off-site storage. (In the UK, that number is 1 in 100; in Japan, 1 in 300.)
    Despite these emotional attachments, respondents to IKEA’s survey admitted that half of their domestic arguments involved the problem of having too much stuff. On the one hand, we feel more and more tied to the objects in our home; on the other, we feel more and more anxious about the physical clutter. In other words, we want to clear our space but can’t bear the burden of negotiating what stays and what goes. (Inevitably, Christmas will add to our pile of things wanted and unwanted.)

    In Scripture, Jesus didn’t warn against excessive accumulation because it was a mental health hazard. In fact, every time Jesus and the New Testament writers warn against material greed, they don’t mention the anxiety of physical clutter and the reward of minimalism. Rather, they point forward to a more permanent home—and investment in a more lasting kingdom.
    In Luke 12:13–21, Jesus tells the story of a rich fool who presumes longevity of life. I’ll build bigger barns for all my stuff, he reasons. But his life is demanded of him far earlier than expected, and to his regret, he discovers that he has not been rich toward God.
    In Luke 16:19–31, we find a similar story. The rich man, “clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day,” finds his fortune dramatically reversed with the fortune of a beggar, who had lain hungry at his gate every day. In the afterlife, the rich man is humiliated, the poor man exalted. Both men discover the fleeting shadow of this life and conversely, the never-setting sun of eternity.
    Paul, too, instructs the rich not to “put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain,” but rather to be generous. “In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (1 Tim. 6).

    In other words, the point is not necessarily that we’re forbidden from owning and accumulating. Rather, it’s that if our apartments, houses, condos, and rented rooms tell any story, it should be this: We’re waiting on a better world.

The gospel tells an old, old story. God wriggled his way through a womb to make his home among us. Taking up flesh, Jesus pitched his tent in our neighborhood. He came as a poor man and owned so little that he didn’t have a place to lay his head. On the eve of his betrayal, arrest, and crucifixion, he told the disciples about his true home: his Father’s house with its many rooms. “If that were not so,” he said, “would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?” (John 14:2).

Maybe, then, the best homes we make tell realistic, honest stories about the human condition on this side of heaven. They’re impermanent and imperfect, no matter how much we seek (or avoid) accumulation. Earthly homes are fleeting stars. Like the Wise Men, we follow them as a way to long “for a better country—a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16). If only for a glimpse of the Christ!

“I’ll be home for Christmas,” we sing. And then again, maybe not.

Jen Pollock Michel is the award-winning author of Teach Us to Want and Keeping Place. She lives with her husband and five children in Toronto.


December 24 | BANGLADESH - Pray for Tania. Her husband suffered a massive heart attack. Pray that God may raise His healing hand over her husband. 

*Names changed for security reasons.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

#2175 (12/23) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Real Feminists Care About Women and Children. Real Feminists are Pro-Life"

CHRISTMAS, 2017
Mary and Joseph never considered aborting their "inconvenient" child over 2000 years ago and as a result the world has been blessed as it has not by any other child born. Tragically, today and EVERY day in America, an estimated excess of 4,000 girls and women have their "inconvenient" unborn child aborted, most times thinking they are just ridding their bodies of tissue. Oh, that each one would have the eyes to see the CHILD they carry and ponder the untold blessings that child has been destined by God to bring into the world. Let us pray that more and more will CHOOSE LIFE rather than death for their CHILD, this Christmas and every day.

"REAL FEMINISTS CARE ABOUT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. REAL FEMINISTS ARE PRO-LIFE"Kristan Hawkins. Dec. 21, 2017|
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/12/21/real-feminists-care-about-women-and-children-real-feminists-are-pro-life/
     As we approach a holiday in which an almost single mother and a step-father welcome a special baby born during a forced journey to comply with a government order, it’s interesting to ponder how women’s interests have been evolved from empowering women in the context of their lives and families to focusing on things that ensure they don’t have families at all.

Today’s mainstream feminists work to enforce an agenda for women that has been reduced to a single issue and one group of people (not necessarily female): abortion and any who pledge allegiance to that cause. First wave feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton have been replaced by Planned Parenthood apologists who ignore the kinds of issues that once united disenfranchised women. On my on-going speaking tour of Ivy League colleges, discussing the misinformation campaigns that pollute too much of modern day feminism, I’ve realized the one of the best ways to illustrate how self-appointed mainstream feminists have lost there way is to recommend that students take a literature class.

If you want to see just how far gone many modern day feminists are consider the world of Jane Austen, Emily and Charlotte Bronte, in stark contrast to the whining tour of Hillary Clinton and her current apologists. Her reasons for a failed campaign never include her leadership or political agenda, but rather things like the misogyny that’s “endemic” to America or that the men dropped the ball (like Barack Obama or Bernie Saunders) by not doing enough to help, or that old canard about women being too whipped to think for themselves.
    During her campaign, Clinton and her allies were direct that a vote for her was a vote for abortion and all that Planned Parenthood wanted to sell. They were dismissive of women who didn’t share their views … and they were dismissed in the election.

While I, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, believe in the goal of our feminist foremothers, equality for all human beings including the right of women to vote, to own property, to speak publicly, to chose and to fulfill their educational, career, and family goals, I’m sure the self-proclaimed leaders of today’s feminist movement and those lingering second-wave feminists of the 1960s and 1970s would tell you that I don’t belong, that in fact I’m not welcome. I’m not a “feminist” because I don’t support abortion.

But feminism used to be about empowering women who faced legal and social situations that crippled their futures. One afternoon in a library would illustrate what I mean.
    In the world of the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen, women were treated like second-class citizens, whose diminished economic opportunity stemmed from patriarchal inheritance laws, blocked access to education, and crushing societal expectations. With potent pens, the authors illustrated that their heroines faced dire circumstances BECAUSE they were women.
    Consider that in Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet and her four sisters are forbidden to inherit their father’s estate and will be penniless and homeless should he die, leading to their mother’s rather painful match making, and eventually to Mr. Darcy. 
    In Sense and Sensibility, three girls and their mother are tossed from their home when a loving father dies, and his son by a first marriage abandons them at the urging of a greedy wife. Marianne and Elinor find love, though not a simple path, and for Marianne in particular one wonders if her feelings for Colonel Brandon were partially flamed by his resources after she is jilted by a fortune hunter.
    In Mansfield Park, Fanny Price is a poor relative, living with extended family, navigating a dynamic in which her lack of options keep her right where she is, in a dark story of social pressures. In Emma, the rich heiresses plays match maker for a bastard girl who is considered lucky when a farmer makes her an offer. Her friend’s prospects are compared again and again against Emma’s, and the lack of options is clear.
    Women’s crushing pressures portrayed with Austen’s light touch become darker as the Bronte sisters, who suffered at the hands of their father, explore doom, loss and lack of choice. In Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte writes a painful story of a girl who wants to make her own way, keeping her conscience clear, even as she loves the troubled, married Mr. Rochester. And who can forget Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, a tragic love story in which poverty and family crush the lives of Heathcliff and Catherine and the children that endure them.

Still, you don’t have to look back to the Victorian age to see women in our world today whose futures are limited because economic advancement is controlled by a patriarchy. Modern day feminists who talk endlessly about abortion remain too often silent about women in other cultures whose lives are controlled only because of their sex.

On my speaking tour, some feminists have taken offense of my criticism of a movement that once sought to empower women in whatever role they chose. But I didn’t leave feminism behind; it left me. In working with Generation Z and Millennial voters nationwide on all kinds of campuses, I know firsthand that today’s women want more than abortion, that for the majority of students pre-born life is valued and that success means more than just a career.

Jane Austen once said, “Give a girl an education and introduce her properly into the world, and ten to one but she has the means of settling well, without further expense to anybody.” That drive for self-empowerment is what I find on college campuses among women today, who don’t rely on a feminist label and whose futures are brighter than ever.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Friday, December 22, 2017

#2174 (12/22) "4 Big Signs of a Trump Economic Recovery"

ATTENTION:  SCROLL DOWN  to get TODAY'S article entitled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. And PLEASE be sure to note the various PRAYER REQUESTS listed BEFORE and AFTER the posted article. (NOTE the list of DAILY prayer requests for the persecuted church.)  They ALL deserve  your intercession
THANK YOU.
"4 BIG SIGNS OF A TRUMP ECONOMIC RECOVERY"-  Fred Lucas / December 15, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/15/4-big-signs-of-a-trump-economic-recovery [AS I SEE IT: I can almost guarantee you will not read the things this article points out in the mainstream press unless it is stated in a negative context. It's way past time the American people noted what great things - though not perfect as nothing ever is - has been accomplished in just the past year. - Stan]
President Donald Trump has some fun cutting symbolic red tape Thursday at the White House to demonstrate the huge growth in government regulations since 1960. The White House says the administration has killed 22 regulations for every new one. (Photo: Mike Theiler/UPI/Newscom)

The economic numbers clearly have improved on President Donald Trump’s watch, with unemployment down and consumer confidence stronger. “We are just getting started,” @POTUS says.
    “Economic growth has topped 3 percent,” Trump said ... at a White House event while addressing his administration’s reduction in regulations. “Two quarters in a row, except for the hurricanes, we would have almost hit 4 percent, and you remember how we were doing when I first took office.”
    Trump also noted a difference between President Barack Obama’s eight years in office and the current outlook. “This country was going economically down,” he said. “Small business optimism is at its highest point in 34 years, and we are just getting started.”
    Trump ... noted that his administration so far has killed 22 regulations for every one added. The president’s original executive order called for elimination of two regulations for every new one.

The debate with any president comes with how much credit or blame his policies deserve for the economy’s performance, and how big a factor his immediate predecessor’s policies are. Some experts are more cautious than others in giving Trump credit.

The National Association of Manufacturers’ survey of members found that 94.6 percent of respondents had a positive outlook for their companies for 2018. That is the best result in the survey’s 20-year history, and up significantly from the survey done in late 2016, when positive outlook hit 63 percent. This rosy attitude can be in part attributed to Trump’s policies, said Jay Timmons, president of the manufacturers association.
    “Most of our respondents were talking about pro-growth tax policies and getting around the regulatory morass, and those are the two big priorities for manufacturers,” Timmons told The Daily Signal in an in-person interview. “The third priority [for manufacturers] is infrastructure. Those are three big priorities for the administration. This will encourage hiring and investment.”

Consumers are spending more money, but expanding companies’ physical investments—buying a major tool, a truck, a facility—will be the real measurement, said Salim Furth, a research fellow in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.
    “The good direction of the economy in 2017 is largely a continuation of the strong economy that started in 2014, when we’ve had a huge decrease in energy prices because of fracking and low inflation,” Furth told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. Attributing economic growth to one president is difficult, but the benefits of fracking—the extraction of fossil fuels from rocks—are clear and provable, Furth said. “Anticipation of tax policies and regulatory policies can drive the economic outlook, but an administration that lives by the economic numbers dies by the economic numbers,” he said. “Politicians will always put their spin on numbers.”

But Trump should be credited as the “fountainhead of the current economic boom,” said Alfredo Ortiz, president of Job Creators Network, a pro-business advocacy group.
    “His long and deeply held commitment to tax cuts and deregulation, among other policies, has given small businesses—and for that matter, all businesses—the confidence and ability to invest, hire, and expand, generating the current economic boom,” Ortiz told The Daily Signal in a written statement. “Now President Trump must continue to leverage his leadership skills to get his policies across the goal line and consolidate these gains.”

Here are four key categories of economic indicators and improvements since Trump took office.

1. Growth Gets Closer to 4 Percent
    The gross domestic product grew by 3.3 percent for the third quarter of 2017, as the Trump administration touted the goal of achieving 4 percent growth. The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that without the major hurricanes, growth would have reached 3.9 percent. During Obama’s administration, annual growth never reached 3 percent.
    Labor productivity increased by 3 percent in the third quarter, up from 1.5 percent in the third quarter of 2016.
      Household wealth jumped by $1.7 trillion to a record $96.2 trillion, according to the White House, and almost 1.4 million Americans dropped off the food stamp rolls since January, when Trump took office.
    The unemployment rate fell to 4.1 percent for November, the lowest since President Bill Clinton 17 years ago. Unemployment claims fell to their lowest level in 44 years, according to the White House, and 12 states—Hawaii, California, Idaho, Texas, Alabama, Maine, Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, Colorado, North Dakota, and Oregon—reached record low unemployment rates.

2. Stock Market Hits Record Highs
    The stock market performed well during the Obama administration, but hit new records under Trump. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up over 32 percent since Election Day 2016. On Nov. 30, the Dow closed at over 24,000 points for the first time.
    “Because of our regulatory and other reforms, the stock market is soaring to new record levels, 85 [times], not including today. Hopefully, we’ll set another one today, 85 times since Election Day, creating $5 trillion of new wealth,” Trump said during the White House event. “And the $5 trillion was as of about three weeks ago, so I assume we probably hit $6 trillion almost.”

3. Companies Are ‘Coming Back Fast’
    Trump delights in touting examples of companies that are making major new investments in the United States. “They’re all moving back,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “They’re moving back into our country. Those companies are coming back, and they are coming back fast.”
    Some examples during the year include:
* Foxconn Technology Group announced it was investing $10 billion in Wisconsin to build a factory that will employ 3,000 workers. The company predicted it will benefit another 22,000 workers indirectly.
*Corning Inc. announced during a White House ceremony with Trump that it was investing $500 million in new U.S. production, creating 1,000 jobs.
*Broadcom Limited announced at another White House ceremony its plan to move headquarters back to the United States, bringing $20 billion in annual revenue.

4. Healthy Consumer and Employer Confidence
    To the degree that the economy is a self-fulfilling prophecy, business leaders, economists, and ordinary Americans seem to be feeling better about the days ahead. 
The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index rose for the fifth month in a row in November, to a 17-year high of 129.5.
The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index reached a 16-year high.
The Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index found that optimism among small businesses held steady in the third quarter after the biggest increase in decades during the second quarter.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Thursday, December 21, 2017

#2173 (12/21) "Polls: Plurality of Americans Support GOP Tax Bill, Economic Confidence Soars"

"POLLS: PLURALITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GOP TAX BILL, ECONOMIC CONFIDENCE SOARS"Guy Benson: Dec 20, 2017; 
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/20/polls-plurality-of-americans-support-gop-tax-bill-economic-confidence-soars-n2424658 [AS I SEE IT: As I said the other day, the mainstream can't stop from casting the tax reform bill - and just about anything positive our President does - in a negative light. It makes you wonder if the polls they keep presenting were done surveying only liberal Democrats (talk about being rhetorical!). If more Americans were to truly grasp what this bill will do for them, their approval should only increase as should the President's job approval rating. Time will tell how well the Republicans do in getting the  right information out there. - Stan]
     In the lead-up to final passage, I've been harping on how a number of recent polls have measured strong public opposition to the Republican tax reform bill, with majorities of respondents reaching the false conclusion that they'll get hit with a tax increase -- when, in fact, 80 percent of them will get a tax cut, and less than five percent will see a bump in their tax liability.  So I feel like I owe it to you to share some better news, as circumstances permit.

    A new national survey from Politico finds that a nine-point plurality supports the GOP plan (44/35), with respondents (correctly) predicting by substantial margins that the proposal will generally help the US economy, corporations, small businesses, and high income families.  Where the numbers get dicier -- producing approximately even splits are on the legislation's impact on middle- and lower-income taxpayers, as well as 'people like you:'

    Those data points aren't great, but they're much better than other polling we've seen recently.  The Politico survey may prove to be an outlier, but its findings are still worth flagging.  As for the empirical realities behind those perceptions, nonpartisan data demonstrates that middle class taxpayers benefit disproportionately from the tax cuts, and millions of American workers will benefit from the tax overhaul's economic affects.  The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and Tax Foundation each project higher GDP growth (and more jobs) under the plan, though their predictions diverge on how sweeping and enduring those positive outcomes would be.  These signals from manufacturers are certainly a welcome sign, however:

Guy Benson @guypbenson
      "Nearly 63 percent of CEOs said business tax reform would encourage capital spending and more than half said they would expand their businesses."https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/11/manufacturing-ceo-record-high-optimism-on-prospect-of-tax-reform.html …
     Manufacturing CEO survey shows record high optimism on prospect of tax reform. In its quarterly survey, the National Association of Manufacturers found 94.6 percent of CEOs were positive about their company's outlook.

Meanwhile, the latest CNBC poll shows a significant surge in economic optimism among Americans, with President Trump's approval rating ticking up several points as a result:
     "American optimism on the economy is reaching new heights and President Donald Trump's approval ratings look to be benefiting, at least somewhat. The CNBC All-American Economic Survey found that for the first time in at least 11 years, more than half of respondents to the survey rated the economy as good or excellent, while a near record 41 percent expected the economy to improve in the next year.  "We're not measuring a marginal change in the economy, we're measuring a different economy,'' said Public Opinion Strategies' Micah Roberts
     ...The survey found that 42 percent of Americans expect their wages to rise in the next year, and 41 percent of homeowners see their home values going up, the highest level recorded since 2007
    ...Trump's approval rating has mostly been disconnected from the better economic data but that could be changing. With gross domestic product rising strongly the past two quarters and the unemployment rate remaining low, Trump's approval rating has jumped. Forty-two percent in the poll approve of the job Trump is doing as president, up 4 points from the September survey, while 49 percent disapprove, down 3 points
    ...The president's approval numbers are substantially better on the economy. Forty-seven percent approve of his handling of the economy, up 4 points from September, while 43 percent disapprove, up 2 points. For the first time during the Trump presidency, more than half of independents approved of the president's economic stewardship.

This survey found approval for the GOP tax plan underwater at (26/38), but a whopping 36 percent said they don't know enough about the issue, or aren't sure. Republicans would be wise to conduct an all-out messaging blitz because the facts are on their side -- and the side of the vast majority of the American people.  Quinnipiac University's pollster has also detected record-setting economic outlook positivity across the country, yet a majority of respondents in that same survey disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.  Democrats also lead by double digits on the generic Congressional ballot, representing the latest brutal finding on that front for the GOP.  If these numbers are even close to accurate ten months from now (pay close attention to the senior citizen demographic...gulp), Democrats will be riding their own 2010-style backlash midterm wave.  I'll leave you with sub-moronic chanting from insufferable protesters prior to yesterday's House vote on the Republican tax bill:

These people are beyond persuasion (here's my analysis of the "tax reform kills people!" insanity), but perhaps many voters are not -- and maybe their minds will be more open to GOP arguments once they realize their taxes have gone down, not up. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taxpayers Could See Benefits From GOP Tax Bill as Early as February"Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / December 20, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/20/taxpayers-see-benefits-gop-tax-bill-early-february/
"The Economic Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" - Parker Sheppard / @parkersheppard / David Burton / December 20, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/20/the-economic-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
"Survival of the Shrillest" - George Will, Dec. 20, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454820/republican-tax-reform-net-neutrality-democrats-congress-overreaction
"A Solid Accomplishment on Taxes" - by THE (National Review)EDITORS, Dec.18, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454726/republican-tax-bill-solid-accomplishment?target=topic&tid=1104
"Overheated Rhetoric on Tax Reform"- by Michael Tanner, Dec. 6, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454368/tax-reform-isnt-armageddon?target=topic&tid=1104

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

#2172 (12/20) "What’s in a (Transgender) Pronoun? - Speaking Truth in Love"

 "WHAT'S IN A (TRANSGENDER) PRONOUN? - SPEAKING  TRUTH IN LOVE" - by: Eric Metaxas & Stan Guthrie, Breakpoint.org, Dec. 15, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/12/breakpoint-whats-transgender-pronoun/
If a transgender person asks you to use a pronoun or name in line with his or her preferred gender, what do you do? It’s no longer a hypothetical question.

In “Romeo and Juliet,” we remember Shakespeare asking, “What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” A rose is still a rose no matter what we call it. But what’s in a pronoun? Specifically, if a neighbor who identifies as transgender asks us to use ze rather than he or she, does it really matter? What should we do to honor the relationship and the gospel?

It’s a sticky issue for Christians, and it’s becoming stickier by the day. That’s why I’m glad to tell you about a very helpful perspective, an article by Andrew Walker entitled, “He, She, Ze, Zir? Navigating pronouns while loving your transgender neighbor.” Walker, who wrote the great book “God and the Transgender Debate,” is Director of Policy Studies at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In the article, Walker exhibits the truth and grace so necessary for believers to navigate these choppy waters in our homes, at work, and in church. Regarding the truth, he forthrightly points out, “Pronouns are not an insignificant issue. … The question we as Christians have to consider is whether the reality we are being asked to affirm is objective and corresponds to biblical truth, or whether the reality we are being asked to acknowledge is subjective and false. Nothing less than the truth and authority of God’s revelation over created reality is up for grabs in something as seemingly innocent as pronoun usage.”

Andrew adds, “Because, at root, the transgender debate is a metaphysical debate about whose version of reality we live in, and only one account—Jesus Christ’s—can lead us into truth about reality and human flourishing.”

The Bible reminds us, as well, to speak the truth in love—that is, with grace. While God’s Word unequivocally says that we’re created male and female, it also makes clear that each of us has been made in God’s image and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and compassion. So while Andrew never backs down from our mandate to obey God’s Word as we see it and follow our consciences, he counsels godly wisdom in how we respond to people, depending on things like the social context and the depth of the relationship.

Surprisingly, Andrew first counsels avoiding the pronoun dilemma whenever possible. Rarely do we have to use the third person when speaking to someone. Second, generally, we can use the person’s preferred first name, since names are gendered culturally. Third, don’t lie! “Those with writing or speaking platforms,” Andrew writes, “have an obligation to speak and write truthfully and not kowtow to political correctness or excuse falsehood. … I will call Bruce Jenner ‘he,’ or if I do say ‘Caitlyn,’ I will still say, ‘him.’”

Then Andrew covers what he calls some “tricky situations.” When it comes to a close family member who is transgender, Andrew says he would not honor the pronoun or first name request. “I know this person intimately,” Andrew explains, “and in all likelihood I possess the relational capital to understand this person’s story and speak truthfully.” He acknowledges this decision may be deemed offensive even when done kindly, but sometimes this is unavoidable.

Same thing with the workplace. If you know the other person well, you should tell him or her the truth. Andrew acknowledges this might mean you will run afoul of company HR policies. “None of this is easy,” he acknowledges, “but Jesus never promised that following him would be without great personal cost.” Indeed not.

I’d tell you what he says about church encounters, but it’s nuanced, .., Just come to BreakPoint.org and we’ll link you to the article. Because, while it may not matter what you call a rose, it matters very much what you call a fellow human being.
For more on this very controversial topic, read Andrew Walker’s book, “God and the Transgender Debate.” It’s available at the online bookstore.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCESFor more on this very controversial topic, read Andrew Walker’s book, “God and the Transgender Debate.” It’s available at the online bookstore.
"He, She, Ze, Zir? Navigating pronouns while loving your transgender neighbor"Andrew T. Walker | ERLC.com | December 7, 2017; https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/he-she-ze-zir-navigating-pronouns-while-loving-your-transgender-neighbor
God and the Transgender Debate Andrew T. Walker | The Good Book Company | August 2017 - https://www.amazon.com/God-Transgender-Debate-Andrew-Walker/dp/1784981788/ref=sr_1_1?
"Call me 'ze,' not 'he': University wants everyone to use 'gender inclusive' pronouns"Todd Starnes | Fox News | August 28, 2015; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/28/call-me-ze-not-university-wants-everyone-to-use-gender-inclusive-pronouns.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the Pronoun Wars, Be Thankful for the Founding Fathers" - Jarrett Stepman  / December 11, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/11/pronoun-wars-thankful-founding-fathers/

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

#2171 (12/19) "5 Myths About Tax Reform, and Why They’re Wrong"

"5 MYTHS ABOUT TAX REFORM, AND WHY THEY'RE WRONG" - Adam Michel / Rachel Greszler / December 14, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/14/5-myths-tax-reform-theyre-wrong [AS I SEE IT: I find it amazing how local and national news reports done by network stations frame the issues of our day. Just listen to how they present the tax reform effort being proposed. So one-sided, so biased it's no wonder so many are confused and even negative about it. Why can't stations just report the news objectively? Also, remember yesterday's post (#2170) and how they choose not to even report some stories. Sheesh! - Stan]
The GOP tax reform bill would let American households keep more than $4,000 on average per year. (Photo: iStock Photos)

[During the next few days] the House and Senate will take their final votes on tax reform. The president’s goal is to sign the legislation into law before Christmas.
    Although there are still some unknown details, the important parts of the bill for most Americans are already known and would greatly improve our current, woefully out-of-date tax code. The bottom line is that taxpayers across America can expect a tax cut. The bill would lower tax rates for individuals and businesses, double the standard deduction, and significantly increase the child tax credit.
    The bill is also pro-growth and pro-American worker. The economy could grow to be almost 3 percent larger at the end of 10 years. That translates to more than $4,000 dollars per household, per year. American families could finally get a real raise.

Americans deserve to know the truth about the proposed tax reform packages. There are several myths going around about what the proposed plan would do. Here are a few of them, and why they’re wrong.

Myth 1: This is just a tax cut for the rich, and it will actually raise taxes for everyone else.
     The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. It found similar results for the House bill.
    Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.
    The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over $1 million see a cut of only 6 percent.

In two recent Daily Signal pieces, we calculated how 12 different taxpayers would fare under each of the tax plans. The results show that almost everyone will see a tax cut, and only the wealthiest families are at risk of their taxes going up. Under the current tax code, the top 10 percent of income earners earn about 45 percent of all income and pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The U.S. tax code is already highly progressive, and these tax reforms will only increase the trend of the wealthy paying more than their share of income earned.

Myth 2: Repealing the individual mandate will raise taxes on the poor, raise insurance premiums, and kill 10,000 people a year.
    Only in Washington can removing a tax penalty be considered a tax increase. Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.
    Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families.
    Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices. Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
    The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was. “The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums. While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.
     One particularly outrageous claim is that due to people voluntarily choosing alternative health care solutions, 10,000 people will die each year because the government is no longer forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Two economists reviewed these claims and found the exact opposite. They found that there is “poor evidence linking insurance coverage to mortality” and that “the mandate may in fact be elevating death rates in some populations.”
When you factor in the economic growth and higher wages from tax reform, the tax bill could actually save lives.

Myth 3: Corporations and their rich owners will receive a huge windfall.
    Politicians who don’t want tax reform claim that cutting taxes for business will only help the rich. Despite the name—“corporate” tax reform—the burden of the corporate income tax falls almost entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Americans are undoubtedly skeptical about this claim, but the realities on the ground are actually quite simple. When business taxes go down, workers’ wages go up. That’s not just the result of corporate benevolence. Rather, wages rise because higher profits translate to additional investments that make workers more productive, and businesses that don’t pay workers what they are worth will lose them to competitors who do.
    American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. If tax reform can lower that rate to 21 percent, American businesses and the workers they employ will be globally competitive again. Businesses will invest more, hire more workers, and be forced by the laws of supply and demand to raise wages.
    This is exactly what happened over the past decade and a half in neighboring Canada. In 2007, Canada began lowering its corporate tax rate. And guess what? Wages grew significantly faster in Canada than other comparable countries.
    Most economic researchers agree. A recent review of 10 separate studies published between 2007 and 2015 concluded that when governments cut corporate taxes, workers receive almost all of the benefit through higher wages.

Myth 4: Tax reform will be bad for seniors.
     Retirees may be the most concerned about what tax reform will mean for them, as most rely on relatively fixed incomes. But, the proposed reforms are good news for retirees. For the most part, they would be less affected than other Americans, as the proposed reforms would not change the way Social Security and investment income are taxed.
     Many retirees would in fact benefit from the tax bills’ doubling the size of the standard deduction. While seniors’ earnings and pension income would be subject to new individual income tax brackets and rates, those changes would actually mean tax cuts—not increases—for an overwhelming majority of seniors and retirees.

Myth 5: Tax reform won’t grow the economy, it will only add to the debt.
     Congress rightly allowed the tax reform bill to decrease revenues over 10 years by $1.5 trillion—about 3.5 percent of projected revenue. But such “static” budget scores provide zero useful information about how the reform will actually affect the deficit. Properly designed tax reform will lead to a larger economy and higher wages. Each of these economic benefits can result in more tax revenue.
    A recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that the Senate tax reform bill could boost the size of the U.S. economy by almost 3 percent over the long run. Other estimates are even more optimistic. Nine leading economists recently described how the economy could see a boost of up to 4 percent due to tax reform. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers believes the economy could grow between 3 and 5 percent, a range that was independently verified by three economists from Boston University.
     Tax reform that grows the economy could result in more than $130 billion of new federal revenue in every year outside the current budget window. And that’s using the most conservative of the estimates above.More optimistic estimates would bring in well north of $200 billion, making up most—if not all—of the static tax cut once the economy reaches its new larger potential.

Congress’ spending addiction shouldn’t stop tax reform, but the tax cuts will be short lived if Congress continues to increase spending every year.
     The fact remains that our deficit cannot be eliminated with tax increases. Believing it can denies the fundamental problem: The deficit is driven by out-of-control spending. Spending is where congressional deficit hawks should turn their attention.

It is true that the proposed tax reform packages would mean big changes for individuals, families, and businesses across the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, these changes would be resoundingly positive. Lower- and middle-income families would receive the largest tax cuts, and they would be the primary beneficiaries of business tax reforms that would generate higher wages and more job opportunities across America.

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In 1 Chart, What’s in the Final Tax Reform Bill"Adam Michel  / December 18, 2017 /http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/18/in-one-chart-whats-in-the-final-tax-reform-bill