#1905 (3/31) "Freedom Caucus Is an Ally, Not an Enemy in Draining the Swamp"

"FREEDOM CAUCUS IS AN ALLY, NOT  AN ENEMY IN DRAINING THE SWAMP" /  Genevieve Wood / March 30, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/30/freedom-caucus-is-an-ally-not-an-enemy-in-draining-the-swamp/

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., led the House Freedom Caucus in negotiations with GOP leadership and the White House over the American Health Care Act. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)

President Donald Trump’s tweet that it’s the House Freedom Caucus that “we must fight” shows there may be a little confusion about what “draining the swamp” means or, at the very least, what it looks like.

I thought draining the swamp meant changing the culture not just in Washington, but of Washington. I thought it meant putting an end to business as usual, making deals behind closed doors, and the mentality that Washington knows best. I thought it meant politicians would start doing what they promised voters they would do. I truly thought that lawmakers fresh from the 2016 election, in particular Republicans, would do their due diligence in draining the swamp by getting rid of the government regulations and mandates forced on individuals and businesses in an effort to run more and more of our lives. But, perhaps I was wrong.

Because if that is what draining the swamp looks like, then the House Freedom Caucus should be considered a loyal and reliable ally in that battle, not the enemy. It is a part of the solution, not the problem.

Republicans in Congress and running for Congress promised for seven years to repeal Obamacare. Candidate Trump changed the mantra to “repeal and replace.” Fine. But if you promise to do both, then you have to do both.

The best strategy to do both would have been to repeal Obamacare first, as Republicans had agreed on before, and then debate in an open process the new reforms (the replace parts) that would improve our health care system from where it was even before Obamacare became the law of the land. There was precedent for doing it this way. In early 2016, then-President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that repealed Obamacare—a bill overwhelmingly supported by the Republican-led House and Senate.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the former Freedom Caucus chairman, reintroduced this bill and encouraged GOP leaders to use it instead. Meanwhile, weeks before GOP leaders unveiled their flawed American Health Care Act, the Freedom Caucus officially threw its support behind conservative health care reform legislation introduced by Paul and Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C. From that moment in mid-February, it was clear where House conservatives stood on the matter of replacing Obamacare.

But congressional GOP leadership, perhaps at the urging of the White House, decided they wanted to do it differently. OK, fine. But the way they went about doing it was to pull out the old Washington playbook. Draft the bill behind closed doors first. Then hold hearings on a compressed (and, frankly, artificial) timeline so that lawmakers are allowed little opportunity to read and understand the bill, offer amendments or debate, discuss and work out compromises among their colleagues. And lawmakers certainly won’t have time to have a conversation with their constituents about how the bill will affect them and get their feedback.

When all was said and done, the bill was more replace than repeal. Yes, it capped federal Medicaid spending. Good. However, though Obamacare had expanded it, Medicaid was not a new program. So, that was more “reform” than “repeal.” But new federal regulations, such as the essential benefits and preventative care mandates, which made up the architecture and web of Obamacare and were the primary drivers of higher premiums, were left in place.

At the end of the day, the legislation did not repeal the parts of Obamacare that had expanded the role of government in its takeover of the private health care market.

Here’s what you’re not hearing from GOP leadership or the White House: Freedom Caucus members wanted to get to “yes”—even more than their centrist Republican colleagues. Conservatives were even willing to swallow some of the bad policy in the American Health Care Act. But neither GOP leadership nor the White House would budge on the disastrous Obamacare regulations that are driving up your premiums.

And that is Washington as usual. It’s OK to tinker with the financing of government programs as long as the government remains in control of said programs—in this case, in control of what makes up private insurance plans. And that is why those who support draining the swamp should be thankful the House Freedom Caucus played a role in stopping what Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie labeled #SwampCare.

Even now, as Freedom Caucus members try to collaborate with centrist Republicans, they’re getting unfairly blamed by Speaker Paul Ryan and Trump. In fact, one of Trump’s closest House allies, Rep. Chris Collins of New York, had this advice about working with the Freedom Caucus: “If that call comes in just hang up.” GOP centrists seem to be following that advice. After a productive meeting between six centrists and six conservatives earlier this week, the centrists abruptly canceled a follow-up discussion. We also know that at least 17 centrist Republicans were on the record in opposition of the bill. Had the bill come to a vote, that number could’ve doubled given the unpopularity of the legislation and lingering concerns among centrists.

So why is GOP leadership blaming the Freedom Caucus? After all, conservatives were doing what they promised voters: repeal Obamacare. Presented with a flawed bill, they tried to make it better—even if it meant major compromises. Their reward? Facing the scorn of a Trump tweet.

One thing is clear: There are too many Republicans who would prefer to keep Obamacare rather than repeal it, and those claiming they want to “drain the swamp” need to figure out, and figure out fast, what that means. Let’s applaud the Freedom Caucus, and certainly not fight it.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve.

#1904 (3/30) "The False Compassion of Liberalism"

"THE FALSE COMPASSION OF LIBERALISM" - Stephen Moore : Mar 28, 2017; https://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2017/03/28/the-false-compassion-of-liberalism-n2304965 

Last week on CNN I debated a liberal commentator who complained that the problem with President Donald Trump's budget blueprint is that it lacks "compassion" for the poor, for children and for the disabled. This woman went on to ask me how I could defend a budget that would cut Meals on Wheels, after-school programs and special-education funding, because without the federal dollars, these vital services would go away. This ideology -- that the government action is a sign of compassion -- is upside-down and contrary to the Christian notion of charity.

We all, as individuals, can and should act compassionately and charitably. We can volunteer our time, energy and dollars to help the underprivileged. We can feed the hungry, house the homeless. Most of us feel a moral and ethical responsibility to do so -- to "do unto others."

And we do fulfill that obligation more than the citizens of almost any other nation. International statistics show that Americans are the most charitable people in the world and the most likely to engage in volunteerism. Whenever there is an international crisis -- an earthquake, a flood, a war -- Americans provide more assistance than the people of any other nation.

But government, by its nature, is not compassionate. It can't be. It is nothing other than a force. Government can only spend a dollar to help someone when it forcibly takes a dollar from someone else. At its core, government welfare is predicated on a false compassion. This isn't to say that government should never take collective action to help people. But these actions are based on compulsion, not compassion.

If every so-called "patriotic millionaire" would simply donate half of their wealth to serving others we could solve so many of the social problems in this country without a penny of new debt or taxes. My friend Arthur Brooks, the president of American Enterprise Institute, has noted in his fabulous book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" that conservatives donate more than the self-proclaimed compassionate liberals.

The liberal creed seems to be: "We care so much about poor people, climate change, income inequality and protecting the environment (or whatever the cause of the day) that there is no limit to how much money should be taken out of other people's wallets to solve these problems."

Let's take Meals on Wheels. Is this a valuable program to get a nutritious lunch or dinner to infirmed senior citizens? Of course, yes. Do we need the government to fund it? Of course not. I have participated in Meals on Wheels and other such programs, making sandwiches or delivering hot lunches. And many tens of thousands of others donate their time and money every day for this worthy cause.

Why is there any need for government here? The program works fine on its own. Turning this sort of charitable task over to government only makes people act less charitably on their own. It leads to an "I gave at the office" mentality, which leads to less generosity. It also subjects these programs to federal rules and regulations that could cripple the programs. Why must the federal government be funding after-school programs -- or any school programs, for that matter?

One of my favorite stories of American history dates back to the 19th century when Col. Davy Crockett, who fought at the Alamo, served in Congress. In a famous incident, Congress wanted to appropriate $100,000 to the widow of a distinguished navel officer. Crockett took to the House floor and delivered his famous speech, relevant as ever: "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. ... I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
Crockett was the only member of Congress who donated personally to the widow, while the members of Congress who pretended to be so caring and compassionate closed their wallets.

It all goes to show that liberal do-gooders were as hypocritical then as they are today.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1903 (3/29) "Beauty and the Beast and Our Obsession with Remakes - Tale as Old as Time"

"BEAUTY AND THE BEAST AND OUR OBSESSION WITH REMAKES - TALE AS OLD AS TIME" - by: Eric Metaxas & G Shane Morris, Brekpoint.org, March 22, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/03/breakpoint-beauty-beast-obsession-remakes/ [ AS I SEE IT: I refer you back to my recent post #1900 that spoke of the need for Christians to be involved in the arts in order to impact our culture. If you look at many of the motion pictures that have been released the past year and you will see many with traditional values in the story lines. Most are not overtly "preachy" but they nonetheless tell great stories that people are flocking to see with their entertainment dollars. As I told a friend recently, those Christians God has gifted with various artistic skills need to consider how God may want to use them to positively impact our culture. - Stan]

“Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme.” And we just keep retelling and re-singing it. I’m talking about the year’s biggest movie.

In a segment on NPR last Wednesday, Bob Mondello documented the bizarre entertainment phenomenon known as “movie twins.” Hollywood has long puzzled the public by releasing films with nearly identical premises and plots within months or even weeks of one another. “Mission to Mars” and “Red Planet,” “Armageddon” and “Deep Impact,” “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life,” and “Happy Feet” and “Surf’s Up” are just a few of the uncannily similar flicks to hit theaters at or around the same time.

“Hollywood is a small town,” says Mondello, and directors, producers, and screen-writers often swap ideas. But the trend has recently intensified and commingled with a growing preference for remakes. “Interstellar” and “Arrival” tell strikingly similar stories, as do “Life,” and “Alien: Covenant,” both slated for release this spring.

Spiderman has starred in no less than half a dozen movies in the last fifteen years, as have Batman and Superman. And next year Warner Brothers’ take on “The Jungle Book” will follow last year’s live-action remake from Disney, and “not two, but seven Robin Hood movies are currently in development,” because, as Mondello quips, “the over 100 previous ones listed in IMDB just weren’t enough.”

As I said last year on BreakPoint, the new “Star Wars” sequels also retread familiar ground, with what some called a “beat-by-beat” recycling of George Lucas’ original. Trailers and posters for a “Power Rangers” movie will greet theatergoers this month, as will previews for the um-teenth installment of “Transformers,” a series that’s gone on so long, most of the original cast has quit.

Of course, Disney just achieved its biggest opening ever with a “re-skin” of its award-winning 1991 “Beauty and the Beast.” It’s the latest in a series of live-action remakes of classics from the Disney vault, like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. And Allison Wilmore at Buzzfeed wasn’t wrong when she described it as “the mouse-house’s strange, sad ode to itself.” Fans of the original and deservedly beloved “Beauty and the Beast” will likely enjoy this new version because, other than the live actors, a longer run time, and some not-so-subtle politicking, it’s the same movie! As my BreakPoint colleague, Shane Morris, put it, “this was a special edition of the original with eight times the budget.”

But if the quarter-century-old cartoon was so perfect, why did we need a scene-by-scene remake? Putting aside the obvious answer, which is money, the observation I made last year about “Star Wars” still rings true. Hollywood has run out of ideas.

And even movies that shine—and make no mistake, this new and high-budget “Beauty and the Beast” shines—are borrowing their glory from decades past. If asked to name recent films with truly original plots and characters other than dusted off, fifty-year-old comic book heroes, many of us would have a tough time. And that’s not cool!

By the way, the much-ballyhooed “exclusively gay moment” which “Beauty and the Beast” director Bill Condon referred to turned out to be two or three suggestive moments, plus an “in-your-face” transgender moment involving a man dressed in drag and loving it. As a Christian dad, that bugged me. But as a fan of good stories, I found it far sadder that LGBT propaganda was the most original thing about the new “Beauty and the Beast.”

Folks, we need fresh stories! And judging by the recent fare from Disney, Mickey Mouse is fresh out. The familiar can feel good—especially with so much uncertainty when we turn on the news. But it doesn’t uplift us, challenge us, or inspire anew as truly original work can. I’ve said it before and I will say it again: I think Christians are the ones to write, produce, and direct these exciting, new stories and break the spell of non-stop nostalgia.
(Photo credit: Disney)

[bold,italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Further Reading and Information - Take the opportunity to encourage Christians you know who are interested in the arts. As Eric says, efforts to provide original material that tells great stories need to be encouraged and promoted. After all, creativity is a gift from God.

'The Trouble With Disney’s Remake Machine" - Alison Willmore | BuzzFeed News | March 10, 2017; https://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonwillmore/beauty-and-the-beast-review?utm_term=.ch8dWZnxP#.hkVqA1P3L
"Movie Twins? Weirdly Similar Films That Came Out Within Months Of Each Other" - Bob Mondello | NPR.org | March 15, 2017; http://www.npr.org/2017/03/15/520281259/movie-twins-weirdly-similar-films-that-came-out-within-months-of-each-other
"Death Stars and Déjà vu: Hollywood Is Out of Ideas" - Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | January 14, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/2016/01/death-stars-and-deja-vu-2/
"Tolkien, Eliot, and the Power of Story: Don’t Lecture, Inspire" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | January 3, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/01/tolkien-eliot-and-the-power-of-story/
"Many Beautiful Things: The Gift of Sight" - Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | March 9, 2016;http://www.breakpoint.org/2016/03/many-beautiful-things/

#1902 (3/28) "Military at the Tip of the Speer"

"MILITARY AT THE TIP OF THE SPEAR" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 27, 2017; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA17C63&f=WU17C19

The Obama administration didn't waste a single second of its final moments in power. When the moving vans were pulling up to the Pentagon, Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning was still cranking out politically correct regulations -- including the "Promoting Diversity and Inclusion" directive. The Trump team is stumbling on all kinds of last-minute policies like this one throughout the various federal agencies -- which are only making the mess they've inherited even bigger to clean up.

Under the Fanning directive, our friends at the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty protest the fact that it wastes important "time, energy, and manpower" developing yet another radical training tool. "The military exists to protect our nation, not to be used as a laboratory for social engineering -- and especially not from an outgoing official's 11th hour order," said the group's executive director, Chaplain Ron Crews, (U.S. Army-Ret.). "This directive does nothing to increase military readiness but wastes valuable training time just to promote a political agenda."

And it was a political agenda Fanning never bothered to hide. In his farewell interview with CBS, he was asked, "Do you think your being gay made you want to really focus on inclusivity and diversity in the Army?" "Absolutely." Later on, reporter Faith Salie wondered, "Do you think that your commitment to diversity in the Army will be continued in a new administration?" Fanning said he didn't know.

Crews and a number of retired chaplains certainly hope the military's focus will return to its' purpose -- fighting and winning wars. In a letter to Acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer, they sound the alarm on Fanning's policy and ask his successor to rescind it. "The directive, in addition to adding layers of bureaucracy concerning the appointment of civilian and military leaders, requires the development of a plan to provide mandated 'training on implicit or unconscious bias.'" Of course, the problem is, as Crews points out, Fanning never defines what "bias" is. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that liberals would use it as an excuse to censor anyone with biblical beliefs. "Given the variety of serious threats our military faces every day, the Army must cease from continuing such training mandates that cannot be shown to help our soldiers be better prepared for combat readiness," the group writes. 

Obviously, no one can undo eight years of anti-faith, anti-American lawlessness overnight, but we're confident the Trump team is taking the job seriously. They understand, as we do, that the only way to rebuild our troops into the most elite fighting force in the world is to clear the decks of distractions like this one. "Our enemies don't care about how well versed we are on tolerance, inclusion, diversity, or sensitivity," FRC's Lt. General Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) points out. "All they will be concerned with is whether we are capable of and willing to kill or capture them on the battlefield."

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1901 (3/27) "Trump-Backed Health Care Bill Stalls. Here’s How Other Presidents Responded to Early Setbacks"

"TRUMP-BACKED HEALTH CARE BILL STALLS. HERE'S HOW OTHER PRESIDENT'S RESPONDED TO EARLY SETBACKS" - Fred Lucas  / March 24, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/24/trump-backed-health-care-bill-stalls-heres-how-other-presidents-responded-to-early-setbacks/

President Donald Trump talks to reporters in the Oval Office Friday after House Republicans pulled the bill to repeal and replace the Obamacare health law. He is flanked by Vice President Mike Pence, right, and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, left. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)

President Donald Trump’s next moves might be some of the most important of his presidency.“So now we are going to go for tax reform,” @POTUS says.

On Friday, he suffered a legislative defeat on the House bill to replace Obamacare, delivered in part by members of his own party in Congress. Presidential historians say how Trump navigates the health care bill, called the American Health Care Act, pulled for lack of support, could determine the future of his presidency.

Republican leaders decided to pull the bill when it was clear it did not have the votes to pass. Trump talked about moving forward on to another issue—tax reform.  “It was the No. 1 issue for Trump, he picked it,” presidential historian Craig Shirley told The Daily Signal. “If Trump steps forward and says, ‘I’ll do better next time,’ it won’t be debilitating for him. If he points fingers and blames others, it won’t go away.”

During remarks to reporters in the Oval Office Friday afternoon, Trump didn’t blame the House Freedom Caucus or Republican leadership for the health care bill’s failure to pass, but noted not a single Democrat supported the reform. “We will probably be going right now for tax reform, which we could have done earlier, but this really would have worked out better if we could have had some Democrat support,” Trump said. “Remember, we had no Democrat support. So now we are going to go for tax reform, which I’ve always liked.”

Shirley, the author of “Reagan Rising: The Decisive Years, 1976-1980,” noted President Jimmy Carter failed to increase the gas tax, reform the federal bureaucracy, and couldn’t get key nominees confirmed—even with a Democratic Congress. These setbacks in the first couple of months “crippled his presidency going forward,” Shirley said. By contrast, Ronald Reagan was buttressed by big early victories in his first year on tax cuts, budget cuts, shooting down Libyan planes, and built a strong aura of winning.

“Politics is about motion. He can move to another executive order or another piece of legislation,” Shirley said. Because so much is about perception, Trump might be able to bounce back from a stinging defeat if his nominee, Neil Gorsuch, is confirmed to the Supreme Court, said Dan Mahaffee, senior vice president and director of policy for the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, a nonprofit education group. “If Gorsuch is confirmed, which is likely, that’s what people would talk about, and it would make wonderful political theater, and Trump, the former TV star, knows the value of that,” Mahaffee told The Daily Signal.

Repealing and replacing Obamacare was a key item in his first 100-day plan. But the plan also included tax cuts, energy policies, and rebuilding the military that a Republican Congress might have more quickly embraced. Since taking office, Trump has moved aggressively with executive orders on matters such as immigration, infrastructure, and energy. On Friday, Trump announced the final permit for moving forward on construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Health care has been such a thorny issue for past presidents, and Mahaffee said Trump might have focused on racking up other legislative victories for momentum—such as tax reform or national security policy.

“Former presidents have sapped so much political capital on health care. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both lost the Congress over the issue,” Mahaffee said. “Even [George W.] Bush after being re-elected spent his political capital on Social Security reform. That made his push for immigration reform much harder.”

Trump said he expects to return to addressing Obamacare, because it’s going to “explode.”
“It’s going to be an experience that leads to an even better health care plan,” Trump said. He later added, “I know some of the Democrats and they’re good people. I honestly believe the Democrats will come to us and say look, ‘Let’s get together and get a great health care bill or plan that is really great for the people of our country.’”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1900 (3/26) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Fujimura’s' 'Culture Care' - A Better Model for Engagement""

"FUJIMURA'S 'CULTURE CARE - A BETTER MODEL FOR ENGAGEMENT"- by: Eric Metaxas, Breakpoint.org: March 24, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/03/breakpoint-fujimuras-culture-care/

When it comes to culture, do you consider yourself a foot soldier or a gardener? Okay, that’s a bit cryptic. But let me explain.

When was the last time you participated in a boycott? Or shared a Facebook post alerting your friends to a dangerous cultural trend?

Good stuff. Now, let me ask you this: When was the last time you went to an art museum? Or bought tickets to the theater? Or listened to a great piece of music? Or wrote a poem and shared it with friends?

I ask, because, I believe even more important for Christians than being on the front lines of the culture war is participating in the culture—and better yet, helping to create and nurture it. If the main contribution that Christians make to culture is complaining about it, we’re doing something wrong.

That’s what my friend Makoto Fujimura says in his new book, “Culture Care: Reconnecting with Beauty for Our Common Life.” You may have heard me interview Fujimura before. He’s a brilliant artist and writer who has thought long and hard about the relationship between faith and the arts. “Culture,” he argues, “is not a territory to be won or lost but a resource we are called to steward with care. Culture is a garden to be cultivated.”

In other words, Fujimura wants us to shift our thinking away from the “culture wars” model, in which we think of culture as a battleground. Of course we need to have convictions about culture, and to stand by them. But Fujimura wants to offer a better way for us to influence culture for good. His image of a garden is just one of many he draws from nature, to show how we can carefully and patiently help to cultivate that cultural environment and make good things grow in it.

So, how do we do this? Fujimura suggests that both Christians and the arts community start by learning to look at each other as potential allies, even friends, instead of as sworn enemies. He asks us to consider investing in cultural works, as we’re able to afford it. (As an example, he mentions customers who have purchased his own paintings by giving him a little money every month until they were fully paid for.) He suggests that leaders in the church, the arts community, and the business community form partnerships to help support each other and nurture the culture around them. He cites the example of singer Mahalia Jackson, who encouraged Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to “tell ’em about the dream,” spurring him to make his most famous speech. Such encouragement can flow in both directions.

This isn’t always easy work, but it’s extremely valuable and worthwhile. It requires thoughtful engagement instead of blanket condemnation, and it may call for us to broaden our understanding and deal with ideas that seem unfamiliar and uncomfortable. But from such efforts come moments that he calls “generative,” or “life-giving.” Christians who enjoy and support art and culture, who make it a priority in their lives, and who reach out to those in the arts instead of reflexively pushing them away, can help bring the culture toward a renewed appreciation of goodness, truth, and beauty. And that is good for everyone.

Fujimura acknowledges that Christians in the arts, or even just Christians who love the arts, can feel caught between two worlds. But he argues that this is not a bad thing. The person in this position may in fact be playing “a role of cultural leadership in a new mode, serving functions including empathy, memory, warning, guidance, mediation, and reconciliation.”

One of the best things about “Culture Care” is Fujimura’s optimism about our future—especially if you’re feeling a bit weary and battle-scarred from the culture wars. He firmly believes that, as tough as this cultural moment is, we can turn it into a “genesis moment” by learning to nurture and care for our culture and those who create it. If you want to be part of that effort, I can’t think of a better way to start than by picking up this excellent book.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Resources
Culture Care: Reconnecting with Beauty for Our Common Life - Makoto Fujimura, Mark Labberton | IVP Books | March 2017; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780830845033
"Art, Reframed: Makoto Fujimura Invites Us To Choose ‘Culture Care’ Over Culture Wars" - 
Gina Dalfonzo | BreakPoint.org | March 7, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/03/art-reframed/
"Interview with Makoto Fujimura" -Eric Metaxas Show | May 6, 2016; https://soundcloud.com/the-eric-metaxas-show/makoto-fujimura
International Arts Movement website - http://iamculturecare.com/

#1899 (3/25) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Second Thoughts on Assisted Suicide -Canadian Doctors Balk"

"SECOND THOUGHTS ON ASSISTED SUICIDE - CANADIAN DOCTORS BALK" - Breakpoint.org, by: John Stonestreet & Stan Guthrie: March 15, 2017; http://breakpoint.org/2017/03/second-thoughts-on-assisted-suicide/

If “assisted death” is such a good thing, why are so many Canadian doctors having second thoughts?

Last year, Canada enacted a Medical Aid in Dying law. The legislation allows physicians to help gravely ill patients end their lives. Advocates of these sorts of laws justify it by using words such as “compassion,” and “death with dignity”—and many Canadian doctors agreed, saying they’d be glad to participate in physician-assisted suicide.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Canada’s brave new world of state-sponsored killing. Dozens of physicians who signed up, including many who actually provided lethal medications to patients, now want their names removed from the list. According to Canada’s National Post, in Ontario, one of the few provinces that actually tracks this kind of data, 24 physicians have been removed permanently from a voluntary referral list of those willing to assist people who want to end their lives. Another 30 have put their names on temporary hold. Not even the Canadian Medical Association can say how many are having second thoughts—but their decisions are reverberating through the system.

“We’re seeing individuals, or groups of physicians, who are participating and really feel like they’re alleviating pain, alleviating suffering,” says the CMA’s Jeff Blackmer. “And then we’re seeing doctors who go through one experience and it’s just overwhelming, it’s too difficult, and those are the ones who say, ‘take my name off the list. I can’t do any more.’”

That kind of reaction isn’t surprising, given the Hippocratic Oath every doctor takes, vowing to “do no harm” to patients. These doctors started out philosophically supportive of euthanasia … and then reality set in. The human conscience—and the law of God written on our hearts—are powerful things indeed.

But there are also the complications created by verbal ambiguities in the law. In Canada, euthanasia and assisted suicide are permitted for those with a “grievous and irremediable” condition and who face “enduring suffering,” but only if their death is deemed “reasonably foreseeable.”

According to Dr. James Downar, a critical- and palliative-care doctor with Toronto’s University Health Network, “grievous and irremediable” means “serious and incurable.” The problem, Downar says, is that the standard could apply to most chronic conditions. And when it comes to cancer, he says, “many people may have a remote chance of a cure, or disease stability. If it’s one, two or five per cent, is that ‘curable’?”

Meanwhile, as Vancouver Island family physician Jonathan Reggler says, that “reasonably foreseeable” standard “will not appear in any medical textbook.”

So some physicians in Canada fear running afoul of the Medical Aid in Dying law. Reggler notes that, “If the doctor doesn’t carry out the medically assisted death according to the law, that doctor is at risk of being prosecuted for murder.”

An analysis of the actual results of Canada’s law is also more than a little troubling. The commission overseeing Quebec’s euthanasia law, the first of its kind in the country, reported 262 euthanasia deaths in the law’s first nine months—almost three times the expected number. and of those, 21—almost 10%, were found to be outside the legal regulations.

Physicians are hoping that voluntary participation in euthanasia doesn’t become a duty to participate, though that has been suggested by some in the medical community. Thank God, so far, attempts have not been made to force the several Canadian hospitals not participating because of religious convictions to offer this so-called “service.”

We’ve spent a lot of time on BreakPoint and on our podcast denouncing assisted suicide, providing you with arguments and reasons to protect life, as well as clarifying the inevitable consequences of doctor-assisted death. And yet, “death with dignity” laws continue. It’s a hot topic in DC right now, in fact. 

So please, educate yourself, mobilize your church, and warn your legislators. We have resources for you at BreakPoint.org.

Editor’s note: We originally stated that Canadian voters approved the Medical Aid in Dying Law. They did not. The law was passed by the Canadian Parliament in June 2016. We regret the error.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Further Reading and Information - Thank God that some Canadian physicians are re-thinking their decision to participate in the Medical Aid in Dying. Check out the links below for resources and information that highlight the problems with doctor-assisted death laws and regulations.
"Dozens of Canadian doctors decline to take part in euthanasia" - Jardine Malado ChristianTimes.com, March 1, 2017; http://www.christiantimes.com/article/dozens-of-canadian-doctors-decline-to-take-part-in-euthanasia/71492.htm
"Take my name off the list, I can’t do any more’: Some doctors backing out of assisted death" - 
Sharon Kirkey NationalPost.com, February 26, 2017; http://news.nationalpost.com/news/0227-na-euthanasia
"More seeking medical aid to die than expected": Barrette Caroline Plante Montreal Gazette, October 27, 2016; http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/more-seeking-medical-aid-to-die-than-expected-barrette
"Four Problems with Physician-Assisted Suicide" - Ryan T. Anderson Heritage Foundation | March 30, 2015; http://archive.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/Document_Links/Four_Problems_with_Physician-Assisted_Suicide_-_Ryan_T._Anderson.pdf
"A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine" - William L. Toffler Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2015; https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-westminster-jihadist-1490311862
"Always Care, Never Kill: How Physician-Assisted Suicide Endangers the Weak, Corrupts Medicine, Compromises the Family, and Violates Human Dignity and Equality" - Ryan T. Anderson, Heritage Foundation March 24, 2015; http://archive.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/Document_Links/Heritage_Brief_-_Always_Care_Never_Kill.pdf
Life's Worth: The Case Against Assisted Suicide- Arthur J. Dyck, Dennis P. Hollinger, , Francis J. Beckwith Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company November 2002; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=0802845940

#1898 (3/24) "A Worst Casey Scenario on Gorsuch"

"A WORST CASEY SCENARIO ON GORSUCH" - Tony Perkins, Washington Updater, March 23, 2017; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA17C56&f=WU17C17

If you thought your job interview was tough, try being Neil Gorsuch. The president's Supreme Court pick has spent three grueling days under the microscope of nitpicking Democrats who seem more interested in finding a super-legislator than a replacement for Antonin Scalia. Today, after hours of grilling, the 49-year-old finally got a breather from the hot seat, where liberals desperately tried to pin him down on political topics meant to draw out his personal opinions. He didn't take the bait.

"I've declined to offer any promises, hints, or previews of how I'd resolve any case," Gorsuch told them. "When I put on the robe," he explained on day one, "I am also reminded that under our Constitution, it is for this body, the people's representatives, to make new laws... And for neutral and independent judges to apply the law in the people's disputes. If judges were just secret legislators, declaring not what the law is but what they would like it to be, the very idea of a government by the people and for the people would be at risk."

For Gorsuch, the frustration with judicial activism runs deep. Twelve years ago, he blasted the Left for using the courts, not elected officials, to advance its "social agenda." More than a decade later, liberals like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are quite open about their cozy relationship with the courts, gushing that they never could have redefined marriage otherwise. Enter Gorsuch, who shows the kind of deference for the Constitution that his job calls for, and liberals come unglued. In announcing his opposition earlier today, Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) actually used Gorsuch's restraint as a reason to vote no! Amazingly, he points to "serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch's rigid judicial philosophy." That's exactly why the U.S. Senate should confirm him!

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) can only shake his head in disgust. "What happened? Did the Constitution change? I don't think so. I think politics has changed. I think it's changed in a fashion that we should all be ashamed of as senators, and I think we're doing great damage to the judiciary by politicizing every judicial nomination." But, as several pundits point out, Casey's decision could have as much to do with his future as Gorsuch's. The Pennsylvanian is up for reelection next year in a state carried by Trump. "By opposing Judge Neil Gorsuch," warned the National Republican Senate Committee, "Bob Casey is aligning himself with the far Left instead of honoring the will of Pennsylvania voters. Pennsylvanians will remember Casey's betrayal when they head to the polls in 2018." In the meantime, rumors are swirling that Democrats are offering to scrap their filibuster plans if the GOP would promise not to kill the filibuster during a future SCOTUS nominee. Nice try, said Trump advisor Leonard Leo.

"Democrats must be delusional to think that Majority Leader McConnell or any of his Republican colleagues would reward Democrats for their awful treatment of Neil Gorsuch by agreeing to a 60-vote threshold for future Supreme Court nominations in exchange for a filibuster-free vote on Judge Gorsuch. One way or the other his confirmation is all but assured by now. This absurd 'deal' would prolong an environment in which Democrat Supreme Court nominees get up or down simple majority votes and Republican nominees get filibustered. That's not a deal, it's unilateral disarmament."

The only ones Democrats are negotiating with are themselves. Everyone recognizes that the real debate will be over Trump's second choice for the Court, since it has the potential to shift the bench's balance. Senate liberals must have gotten the message, since Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) went to the press before noon with his intent to obstruct. "He will have to have 60 votes for confirmation. My vote will be no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same." For Gorsuch to win his seat, Republicans will have to peel off eight Democrats -- a tall, but not impossible, task.

Until then, some conservatives are taking the time to dissect a few of the judge's statements. More than a few eyebrows were raised when Gorsuch answered a question about same-sex marriage by saying the two-year-old Obergefell ruling "is absolutely settled law." That caused more than a little heartburn in circles like ours who refuse to believe that moral issues like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell have been permanently decided by a handful of unelected judges. (Especially not when the polling shows that the Supreme Court's opinion isn't America's.)

But, as legal experts like Ed Whelan point out, there's no cause for panic. "It's clear, in the broader context, that Judge Gorsuch was saying of Obergefell the same thing he said of lots of other Supreme Court precedents: A justice starts off by presuming that a precedent is entitled to respect and then applies all the considerations that bear on whether that precedent should be overturned," Whelan said. "On this case as on others, Judge Gorsuch's response says nothing about those considerations." FRC's own Mandi Ancalle reminded the Christian Post that "Most of Tuesday morning, Judge Gorsuch spoke about the value of precedent. Certainly, precedent has significant value in the context of judicial interpretation. That said, precedent on a topic does not guarantee a same outcome on a similar case."

But the best reassurance probably came from the Left, where LGBT activists at The Huffington Post dismissed the answer as any sort of support for their cause. Michelangelo Signorile, the "queer voices editor-at-large," argued that the most "telling" portion of Gorsuch's statement on the topic was the part where he did point out that there's "ongoing litigation about [Obergefell's] impact and application." In the end, it's Gorsuch's judicial philosophy that matters most, especially in a highly politicized environment like this one. We continue to be optimistic that he'll interpret the Constitution -- not ignore it.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How Neil Gorsuch Outshined Senate Democrats on Day 3" - Curt Levey / March 23, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/23/how-neil-gorsuch-outshined-senate-democrats-on-day-3/

#1897 (3/23) "The Truth About the Supposedly Impartial News Media"

"THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SUPPOSEDLY IMPARTIAL NEWS MEDIA" - Roger Aronoff / March 17, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/17/the-truth-about-the-supposedly-impartial-news-media

The Washington Post, which accused The Daily Signal of being beholden to political interests, is owned by Jeff Bezos, a billionaire who actively supports liberal causes. (Photo: iStock Photos)

A recent Washington Post article by media reporter Paul Farhi raises the alarm that the White House Correspondents’ Association has not once, but twice, assigned a Daily Signal employee, Fred Lucas, to be the pool reporter, i.e., the reporter who serves as the “proxy for the rest of the press corps.” The Daily Signal is the “news and commentary site” founded by the conservative Heritage Foundation, he reports, labeling it an “advocacy organization.” “In other words,” writes Farhi, “the news that reporters received about the vice president came from a journalist employed by an organization with a vested interest in the direction of White House and federal policy.”

The idea that the so-called mainstream press somehow stands above their own vested interests, or, put another way, against their own agenda, is laughable at best.

The distinction between biased advocacy news organizations and the supposedly independent press has not only blurred—it has become obsolete. Organizations such as The Daily Signal and Breitbart are just as capable of speaking truth to power as media outlets such as The New York Times, the Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC.

In fact, it is these supposedly impartial news organizations that have continued to lobby for the leftist agenda. When President Barack Obama was in office, they not only worked to legitimize and enhance the Obama legacy, ignoring scandal after scandal, but they even tried to influence the Supreme Court to uphold Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare.

The deceit of the media didn’t stop there. Under Obama, the media consistently portrayed the economy as recovering even though the labor participation rate remained at abominable levels. A vast number of the jobs supposedly created in the Obama years were part-time, many lasting for just weeks at a time. The unemployment rate dropped to under 5 percent only because millions of people gave up looking for work, not because the economy was booming. Moreover, Obamacare prevented millions of people from getting a full-time job based on the disincentives built into Obama’s signature program.

A case in point is the coverage of the Congressional Budget Office’s report scoring the proposed Republican legislation intended to replace Obamacare. The headlines and stories focused on the “24 million” people who would “lose health insurance coverage by 2026.” But as The Weekly Standard pointed out, the CBO report doesn’t actually say that. What it does say is that “the total number of individuals insured under the Republican plan would eventually be 24 million fewer than the total insured under Obamacare” by that time.

Ironically, it was just a year ago that The Weekly Standard reported that the CBO had been off on another one of its projections on Obamacare by, you guessed it, 24 million people. That error was the average number of people who would have private insurance during any month in 2016, and it took just three years from the 2013 projection to show that the CBO overestimated it by 24 million. In addition, more than six years after the passage of Obamacare, there were still 29 million people who had no health insurance at all, even though the law required it. The price for not buying insurance is a fine, later redefined as a tax, in order to have it ruled constitutional.

The point is that the so-called mainstream media will grab onto whatever they can to put Republicans and conservatives on the defensive, so they are forced to explain how they can be so cruel as to cause 24 million people to “lose their insurance.” They rarely offer anything close to the proper context to help people understand what the Republicans are trying to do.

How many tens of millions of people have seen their premiums and deductibles skyrocket, or lost their ability to keep their doctors or their policies, or have been unable to find a full-time job because of the employer mandates imposed by Obamacare? Do those numbers matter? Apparently not.

The conservative media also have an agenda, but at least they are generally transparent about it.

The leftist, mainstream media pretend to be neutral, biased only for a good story. But they rarely acknowledge that they deceitfully work to cover for the policies and scandals of the Democrats, while working to destroy conservatives and their policies, treating them as cruel and venal.

And in the heat of the 2016 campaign season, WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 revealed the Democrat Media Complex, where reporters would have cocktails with the Hillary Clinton campaign. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos previously worked for the Clintons and later gave donations to their foundation without properly disclosing his actions. This is par for the course with the complicit media. The idea that “independent” news organizations somehow lack conflicts of interest is absurd....

Under Obama, the press consistently used administration statistics and reports in its friendly, fawning reporting designed to further the Obama legacy. Now that Trump has taken office, the press has reinvested in oppositional journalism, fact-checking minutiae, and claiming that Trump has colluded with Russia.

This is a blatant double standard.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Roger Aronoff is the editor of Accuracy in Media and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Journalists From BuzzFeed, New York Times Assess Daily Signal’s Splash in White House Press ‘Pool’" - Ken McIntyre / March 23, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/23/journalists-from-buzzfeed-new-york-times-assess-attack-on-daily-signals-legitimacy/ 
"Why the ‘Establishment’ Media Is Finding Itself on Shaky Ground" - Genevieve Wood / March 20, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/20/why-the-establishment-media-is-finding-itself-on-shaky-ground/

#1896 (3/22) "Kids These Days - Generation Z Most Conservative Since WWII?"

"KIDS THESE DAYS - GENERATION Z Most Conservative SINCE WWII?" - by: Eric Metaxas, Breakpoint.org, March 16, 2017;
http://breakpoint.org/2017/03/kids-these-days/ [AS I SEE IT: This article was my first exposure to the term "Generation Z." Then to read that the youngest teens today are trending towards being more conservative in their outlook truly encourages me (who is - in case you haven't noticed -  a conservative in my views). It's esp. encouraging to me as just recently I've despaired over meeting young adults (Millennials) who show evidence of years of exposure to liberal views of their public school teachers. I've felt frustrated that while most young people are constantly exposed to the "politically correct" views (if not in the classroom, in social media and the liberal cultural elites), Christians who hold conservative views are restrained from "imposing their views," esp. in the context of the Church environment. How important it is that those in our pulpits are not hesitant to share Biblical views on the issues of the day that more often than not are conservative in nature. And yet, how rare to find such views expressed. As this article shares, maybe there is still hope for "kids these days" and the world tomorrow. - Stan]

For years, we’ve been hearing that one side of the political aisle is on “the right side of history.” But history doesn’t seem to be cooperating.

For at least a decade, Millennials have been stereotyped as lazy, entitled, and stuck on social media. While that may not be entirely fair, they are notoriously liberal, overwhelmingly supporting left-leaning candidates and favoring policies like nationalized healthcare and same-sex “marriage.” But Millennials are also getting old—relatively speaking. The first are now reaching the ripe old age of thirty-five! And sometime between 1995 and 2000, the millennial generation ended, or at least stopped being born, and a new generation began.

Members of “Generation Z” are now beginning to graduate high school, and 2016 was the first time any of them were old enough to vote. At seventy million and counting, they’re also about to outnumber their predecessors.

So, what’s so intriguing about this new brood? Well, according to a growing body of research, they may be, by certain measures, the most conservative generation since World War II—more than Millennials, Generation Xers and even the Baby-Boomers.

Millennials were raised in a time of roaring prosperity, when video cassettes were a bigger influence than digital technology, and many came of age before the age of radical Islamic terror. 
Gen Z kids, by contrast, are “digital natives.” They’ve never known life without the Internet, and have grown up surrounded by instant access to the world’s harsh realities on their smart phones. These young people are products of conflict and recession. They can only remember a news cycle “marred by economic stress, rising student debt… and war overseas.” As a result, they’ve taken on what one team of Goldman-Sachs analysts called a “more pragmatic” and conservative outlook on the world.

Of course, generalizations at this stage are very early and very subject to development. But according to polling in the wake of the 2016 election, Gen Z Americans didn’t vote like their Millennial predecessors. Eight out of ten of these kids identify themselves as “fiscally conservative,” and they prefer saving to spending—at rates not seen since the Silent Generation.

And get this: According to one British study conducted by global consultancy firm, The Guild, almost sixty percent of Gen Z respondents in the U.K. described their views on “same-sex marriage, transgender rights and marijuana legalization” as “conservative” or “moderate,” compared with a whopping 83% of Millennials who called themselves “quite” or “very liberal” on these issues. The Gen Z participants were even ten times more likely than Millennials to dislike tattoos and body piercings!

These are good trends, but these students still need discipleship and catechesis. A tendency toward traditional values, by itself, means nothing unless those who believe in revealed Truth, the Gospel, the natural family, and political and religious liberty step forward and train the next generation to articulate and live out these truths.

What is clear from this emerging data about the young is that they don’t fit neatly into rhetoric about the “right side of history.” As Columbia University sociologist, Musa Al-Gharbi writes, trends like this are deeply troubling for those so recently crowing that the future belonged to one political party.

No one knows what the future holds, except the One Who holds the future! And the fact that so many were apparently wrong about the right side of history is just another reminder that He alone is God, Whom the Psalmist called “faithful throughout all generations.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Resources
"Gen Z is the most conservative generation since those born before 1945" - Marketing Communications News September 15, 2016; http://www.marcomm.news/gen-z-is-the-most-conservative-generation-since-those-born-before-1945/

"The Democratic Party Is Facing a Demographic Crisis" - Musa Al-Gharbi The American Conservative March 2, 2017; http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-democratic-party-is-facing-a-demographic-crisis/

"50k ‘Gen Z’ Students Identify as Republican" - Alberto Avalos Hispanic Heritage Foundation October 27, 2016; http://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/

"Goldman Sachs has made a chart of the generations ... and it will make the millennials shudder" - Jim Edwards  Business Insider UK December 5, 2015; http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-chart-of-the-generations-and-gen-z-2015-12?r=UK&IR=T

"The Post-Millennial Generation Should Worry Democrats" - Pete Vanderzwet Dailycaller.com February 7, 2017; http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/the-post-millennial-generation-should-worry-democrats/

Meet Generation Z: Understanding and Reaching the New Post-Christian World- James Emery White Baker Publishing January 2017; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780801017018

#1895 (3/21) "The Democrats' Intellectually Weak Attacks on Gorsuch"

"THE DEMOCRAT'S' INTELLECTUALLY WEAK ATTACKS ON GORSUCH" - By Carrie Severino, Real Clear Politics, March 20, 2017; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/20/the_democrats_intellectually_weak_attacks_on_gorsuch_133378.html

The Democrats' Intellectually Weak Attacks on GorsuchAP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

In preparation for Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings, which begin today, Senate Democrats have tried desperately to fit the exceptionally qualified nominee into their predictable and worn-out partisan storylines. In the process, they’ve done little to undermine Gorsuch’s credibility and an awful lot to demonstrate their own intellectual weakness.

One of the points the Democrats have been making is that the supposedly autocratic style of President Trump means that federal judges will need to exercise judicial independence more than ever, and that Gorsuch has somehow failed to show that independence. For example, Senator Schumer and others have complained that President Trump presented a litmus test for his nominee, promising to nominate a judge who was, for example, pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. They claim that this approach threatens judicial independence – while ignoring that their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, assured a Democratic audience, “I have a bunch of litmus tests,” and proceeded to name decisions she would want her nominee to overturn and Democratic policies she would want her nominee to protect.

What’s more, Judge Gorsuch is one of the most articulate defenders of judicial independence currently serving on the federal bench. He wrote in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch that judges are “insulated from political pressures with the job of interpreting the law and applying it retroactively to resolve past disputes.” In U.S. v. Nichols, he explained that “ours is supposed to be an independent judiciary making decisions based on the legal merits without respect to the vagaries of shifting political winds.” He would certainly agree with the man he’s been nominated to succeed, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that federal judges “have life tenure . . . precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.”

Democrats also complain that Judge Gorsuch’s textualist approach to the law, by which he interprets laws according to their plain meaning as written, makes him a judicial radical. In fact, Judge Gorsuch clearly swims in the mainstream of American jurisprudence. According to one study, 98% of the opinions he wrote for the Tenth Circuit have been unanimous, even though that court tilts to the left. Seven out of twelve of its active judges were appointed by Democrats.

What’s more, his opinions have been unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court four times. These numbers show that he’s a consensus builder, which is why the Senate confirmed him to the federal bench by voice vote in 2006. It’s why his nomination has received support from many liberals, including a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration. And it’s why the American Bar Association has twice given him its highest rating.

Finally, it’s remarkable to hear Schumer and others express concern that Judge Gorsuch will not answer specific questions about, for example, President Trump’s immigration order. This is a disingenuous complaint in two regards. First, they know very well that if Gorsuch were to answer a question about a specific case, and that case came to the Court, he would have to recuse himself. Canon 5 of the ABA’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judicial candidates from, “with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, mak[ing] pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.”

This emphasis on impartiality is why one nominee explained to a Democratic lawmaker after confirmation hearings: “It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question.”

The nominee was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing to Senator Joe Biden in 1993, shortly before she was confirmed 96-3. Nonetheless, Senator Schumer likes to call this impartiality the “Roberts approach,” as if during his 2005 hearings John Roberts was dodging questions rather than performing his ethical obligations. Today, Judge Gorsuch is only doing what Justices Ginsburg, Roberts and other jurists have realized is crucial to the trust that Americans place in them.

Why do Democrats even bother with these feeble arguments against Gorsuch? The reason is simple: they don’t want him on the court because they want to transform the judiciary into a third political branch, one populated by liberal activists who either rubber-stamp legislation or create new progressive law on their own. This desire to corrupt the proper role of judges – and indeed, to undermine judicial independence and the separation of powers – is why despite all of Judge Gorsuch’s obvious credentials, not a single Democrat has committed to giving him an up-or-down vote and why Senators Schumer and Blumenthal have threatened to filibuster.

The problem for Democrats is that Judge Gorsuch is such an obviously qualified nominee – Columbia undergraduate, Harvard Law, successful private practice, exemplary federal judge –that their efforts to smear him are obviously weak, both politically and intellectually. Judge Gorsuch is an exceptional nominee, one who leaves Democrats flailing in the dark in their desperate attempts to make him look otherwise.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Carrie Severino is the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network. She was previously a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"Here Are 4 Possible Outcomes for Gorsuch’s Confirmation Process" - Rachel del Guidice / March 17, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/17/here-are-4-possible-outcomes-for-gorsuchs-confirmation-process/
"Neil Gorsuch Draws Praise From Democrats as Confirmation Hearings Open" - Rachel del Guidice / March 20, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/20/neil-gorsuch-draws-bipartisan-praise-as-confirmation-hearings-open/
"Here Are The Recycled Attacks That We Can Expect On Judge Neil Gorsuch" - Matt Vespa Matt Vespa: Mar 20, 2017; https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/03/20/heres-the-recycled-attacks-that-we-can-expect-on-judge-neil-gorsuch-n2301686

#1894 (3/20) "Trump’s ‘Skinny’ Budget Paves Way for a Leaner Government"

"TRUMP'S 'SKINNY' BUDGET PAVES WAY FOR A LEANER GOVERNMENT" - Romina Boccia / March 16, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/16/trumps-skinny-budget-paves-way-for-a-leaner-government/

President Donald Trump released his budget proposal on Thursday for discretionary spending in fiscal year 2018. (Photo: Aude Guerrucci /UPI/Newscom)

President Donald Trump’s long-awaited skinny budget is finally here. This slim budget reprioritizes defense spending and reverses eight years of Obama-era shifts in spending from a core constitutional priority toward the president’s domestic pet projects. Federal agencies, beware: The era of fiscal profligacy may be coming to an end, and quickly.

Trump’s first budget plays a key role in the congressional budget process. This skinny budget is only part one. It focuses on the one-third of the budget for which Congress appropriates funding every year, called “discretionary” spending.

The president will reportedly issue his first full budget in May. In addition to discretionary spending, the full budget will include mandatory spending (the so-called entitlement programs) as well as a tax plan and other policy proposals. Cuts to discretionary spending are critical to reducing the size and scope of the government and enhancing individual and economic freedom. They also make an important down payment toward the federal deficit and debt.

Trump’s proposal would cut nondefense programs in most agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (31 percent), the Department of State (29 percent), and the Department of Agriculture (21 percent). Instead of across-the-board reductions such as the ones included in the 2011 Budget Control Act, the president’s proposal includes smart cuts to “drain the swamp” by weaning special interests from feeding unfairly from the federal trough.

The proposal would also make progress in streamlining the bloated federal bureaucracy, and would empower the private sector—as well as states and localities—by getting the federal government out of areas that are not within its proper domains.

In combination with the president’s actions to reduce harmful regulations, the proposal helps to rein in federal bureaucrats whose overzealousness has caused significant harm to private property rights and the economic freedom of American families and individuals. Such a targeted approach will help to unleash innovation, economic growth, and jobs that have been hindered by Washington overreach. It’s due time to cut the federal government down to size, and Trump’s proposals make significant strides in this direction.

My Heritage Foundation colleagues and I have identified more than $80 billion in domestic discretionary cuts that could be made right away. Our congressional budget proposal lays out in great detail where and how those cuts can be made. [see weblink below] We are pleased to see many of these very same proposals reflected in the president’s plan.

Overall, Trump’s budget proposes to cut nondefense discretionary programs by $15 billion in fiscal year 2017 and by $54 billion in fiscal year 2018. The proposal also aims to increase defense spending by $25 billion in fiscal year 2017 and $54 billion in fiscal year 2018.

It is encouraging that the proposal would fully offset any increase in next year’s defense spending with cuts to domestic programs. Worrisome, however, is that this year’s defense boost would only be partially offset, increasing discretionary spending in fiscal year 2017 by $10 billion. Trump should set a positive precedent this year by offsetting any new spending with spending cuts elsewhere.

Success in controlling federal spending and debt ultimately depends on reforms to federal health care programs and Social Security. Without such reforms, nearly 85 cents of every additional dollar in spending over the next 10 years will be consumed by federal health care programs, Social Security, and interest on the debt. Entitlement reform must follow closely behind the president’s efforts to cut and streamline the federal bureaucracy.

Congress should work with Trump to return accountability to Washington and cut the federal government down to size. If they can succeed in reining in Washington bureaucrats and draining the swamp, they can develop more trust with the American people to tackle the nation’s bigger fiscal challenges. The future of the nation depends on them.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017 " -  http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/blueprint-reform-comprehensive-policy-agenda-new-administration-2017
"Trump’s Unique Opportunity to Reform Social Security" - http://dailysignal.com/2017/03

#1893 (3/19) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "The Shack"---Biblical or New Age?"

"The Shack"---Biblical or New Age?" - by Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., https://www.djameskennedy.org/article-detail/the-shackbiblical-or-new-age

If you comment on the novel/movie, The Shack, you’re bound to get strong opinions, either pro or con.

The Shack deals with Mack, a man who has suffered a horrible loss (the murder of his little daughter), which he discovered in a shack. In a (spoiler alert) dream sequence, he returns to that shack; and “God” in three persons meets him there. This encounter leads to an inner healing, where he finally sheds the “the Great Sadness” that has dogged him since her death. Mack comes to affirm the goodness of God, despite suffering in this fallen world.

Stanley Goldenberg, who writes on Christian movies, likens The Shack to the book of Job. He told me that watching the two hour movie is more effective than 20 counseling sessions and will be very helpful to those who are hurting. He also said there are some theological problems in the book and in the movie, but think of it like eating chicken---eat the meat, spit out the bones.

Others say that the level of understanding of doctrine today is so poor that your average professing Christian can’t necessarily discern between the meat and the bones.

After reading the book, I watched the movie with my wife. She said afterwards that too often the American church today has a diet of dessert. Not meat, not even milk, but sweets. I felt the movie was too New Age for my tastes. If Oprah Winfrey were to make a “Christian” movie, The Shack would be it. I felt it took too many liberties with the Person of God. God commands us to not to make any graven images.

But in the movie (based on the book), they had God the Father (Papa) as played by a woman (a great actress in her own right, Octavia Spencer), and the Holy Spirit was played by an Asian woman.When Mack asks why Papa appears as a woman, she answers, “After what you’ve been through, I didn’t think you could handle a father right now.” Later, Papa appears as a man, but then later back as a woman again. At least, Jesus was a man.

An ancient heresy (called modalism) taught that the Trinity isn’t really the Trinity, it just seems that way. So God appears sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Spirit. When Jesus died, God died---so one aspect of this heresy is called “patripassianism”---i.e., the Father also suffered in the passion. But the Bible teaches each Person of the Trinity is distinct. In the movie, the Father had the passion marks too.

In one scene, “God” was asked about “that wrath thing,”---the wrath of God, which is seen repeatedly in the Scriptures. Response? “Sin is its own punishment.” Well, sin is its own punishment, but the Bible also makes it clear that God is angry with our sin. If you don’t think God hates sin, look at Jesus on the cross. That’s what God thinks of our sin.

The whole point of the movie is dealing with pain and loss. That’s noble. But that is precisely where the cross fits in. On the cross, Jesus experienced incredible pain. He went to hell for us. When we truly take our pain to the foot of the cross, then comes true healing.

David Mathis, executive editor of the ministry desiringGod.org writes, “We do not need a wilderness shack to hear from God.” God’s response to human suffering was the cross---by which those who believe can be forgiven and spiritually healed---not just a hug from a God who loves us but is powerless to help us in our suffering.

Meanwhile, I have an evangelical TV producer friend, who got to meet the writer of The Shack, William Paul Young, who gave him a gut-wrenchingly honest interview, including his painful background. My friend noted that God was using the book mightily to help hurting Christians come back to the Lord. He concluded, “let’s look at the bigger work that God is doing and give a little more grace.”

Fair enough. But have we not lost the fear of God in our day? Some evangelicals act as if, “Jesus is my buddy. I can put Him in my back pocket and pull Him out to feel good whenever I want to.”

The Christian proponents of the book/film would point to the idea that this is all a metaphor---a device used in story-telling. But as I watched the film, trying to look past things like God the Father as a woman, I remembered the adage, “the medium is the message.”

One colleague noted, after seeing a positive review of “The Shack” from an evangelical: “Yikes. The American church is starving for discernment, and choking on heresy.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"'Keep Children Innocent': Gay Attorney Says Disney Goes Too Far in Pushing LGBT Agenda" - CBNNEWS.COM, 03-13-2017, http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2017/march/keep-children-innocent-gay-attorney-says-disney-goes-too-far-in-pushing-lgbt-agenda?cpid=CC1703181

#1892 (3/18) PRO-LIFE SAT: "GOP Responds to Infant Messaging"

ATTENTION:  SCROLL DOWN  to get t today's article entitled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. And PLEASE be sure to note the various PRAYER REQUESTS listed AFTER the posted article. They deserve  your intercession. THANK YOU.

BE Prepared TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ABORTION 

(...because ALL Babies Matter! - http://www.lifenews.com/2017/03/01/why-do-unborn-babies-matter-just-because-they-are/ 

: Go to: LIFE Training Institute - http://prolifetraining.com/resources/five-minute-11/  

Be Prepared TO ENGAGE WITH THE PC CULTURE:

Go to:"Tactics" - 

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2016/04/29/tactics-n2154983

3/12 - THANK YOU to all who sponsored me for the Walk for Life yesterday. (It was great to see so many people at the Walk for Life itself; seemed like twice as many as were there last year!)GOD used you to raise $800, not the $500 I had originally set as what I thought was an incredibly high goal. God is truly He of the impossible; PRAISE HIM! Also, the pregnancy center itself surprassed it's goal by nearly 23%! It's still not too late to still give towards their needs; just go to: https://secure.ministrysync.com/ministrysync/RegistrationManager/Email_BrowserView.php?message_id=20170311205856-K544R1DUpV99ib@ministrysync.com Please continue to pray for ThriveOrlando and other such places to always have the funds to help all the girls and women who need their help rather than feel force to abort their unborn children. - Stan

PRAY FOR AND SUPPORT JUDGE GORSUCH FOR THE SUPREME COURT

President Trump has nominated Judge Neil GorsuchMoments ago, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is an excellent choice to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. He is a remarkably qualified nominee with a conservative judicial philosophy and a strong track record of upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. Radical obstructionists - dedicated to defeating a constitutional conservative - are already threatening to filibuster Judge Gorsuch. He is supremely qualified. In fact, the Senate unanimously confirmed him as a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now it's time for the Senate to do its job and confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court without delay. Learn More About Judge Gorsuch, Supreme Court Nominee. https://aclj.org/supreme-court/the-senate-must-confirm-judge-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=d-01312017_top-SC_seg-

     Sign the Petition Now - https://aclj.org/supreme-court/confirm-judge-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court-now?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=d-01312017_top-SC_seg-N_typ-PT Encourage Your U.S. Senator to Support Judge Gorsuch

PERSONAL UPDATE: 3/10 - Please see the JOURNAL section on the right side of this blog page for the latest. I REALLY appreciate all your prayers!

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

"GOP RESPONDS TO INFANT MESSAGING" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 15, 2017; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA17C34&f=WU17C11

Which would you rather pay for: a baby shower or a funeral? That's the very real choice facing taxpayers in the health care debate today. By defunding Planned Parenthood, Americans could celebrate the arrival of thousands more babies -- or fail, and find themselves back where they've been: financially shackled to the culture of death. Either way, liberals warn, there's a cost.

Pulling the plug on the nation's biggest abortion business, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, would mean "The number of births in the Medicaid program would increase by several thousand, increasing direct spending for Medicaid by $21 million in 2017 and by $77 million over the 2017-2026 period." That sounds like a lot of money until you consider that these same children will be pouring far more into the economy and workforce later on. And while the Left will argue that we can't afford to encourage these births, research by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) proves we can't afford not to.

Human capital is one of the driving forces of the economy. That human capital -- our children -- grows up to be our nation's workers, its taxpayers, and its consumers. In more technical terms, former FRC expert Dr. Henry Potrykus found that "Overall GDP growth in the United States has been lagging for more than 50 years, a phenomenon known as the 'growth slowdown.' Human capital considerations, when they are tied to the demographics of the working population, explain this." Think about it. In the last four decades, Americans have reduced the labor force by 58 million people through abortion alone. "The slowdown of GDP growth," Henry elaborates, "is explained by the concentration of both population and human capital in the baby boom, which is now being replaced by lower human capital cohorts."

He predicts that "the U.S. economy will continue to sputter over the coming years. This slowdown is amplified by the retiring of a generation with significant human capital (the baby boom) and its replacement by a generation inadequate in population size to continue the expected and required growth of the macro-economy." Whatever investment the government makes to encourage these births is a small price to pay for the enormous return later -- and not just economically, but in innovation and ingenuity.

Still, Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards's says, any legislation promoting childbirth is "dangerous" and "must be stopped." Even more shocking, she tweets, "Planned Parenthood is proud to provide abortion -- a necessary service that's vital to our mission." So vital, apparently, that it's willing to spend $1 million pressuring the White House to reconsider its position. (How many taxpayer dollars are they spending to defend taxpayer dollars?) "We want to hit in the heart of the Trump coalition," a spokesperson said, announcing their intent to blanket red states with ads. With roughly half of the organization's funding on the line, Richards is pulling out all the stops to repackage the group as a compassionate, cancer-curing women's health organization.

There's just one problem: the statistics tell a different story. Just a quick glance through FRC's Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet [http://www.frc.org/plannedparenthoodfacts] will have you shaking your head in disgust. Liberals love to repeat the line that abortion is just three percent of Richards's business -- a number Slate's Rachael Larimore called the "most meaningless abortion statistic ever"... "to the point of being downright silly." The Washington Post didn't pull any punches either, calling it "misleading." Even National Public Radio called out the group for the lie, suggesting that a more accurate percentage of Planned Parenthood clients who have an abortion would be 10 percent. That's not hard to imagine. In 2014, if a pregnant woman walked into a Planned Parenthood facility, she was 160 times more likely to receive an abortion than an adoption referral. 

As for those cancer screenings the group claims is so central to their work, their own annual reports refute them. "From 2009 to 2014, cancer screening and prevention programs have consistently decreased, and dropped by close to two-thirds (63 percent): 1,830,811 (2009), 1,596,741 (2010), 1,307,570 (2011), 1,121,580 (2012), 935,573 (2013), and 682,208 (2014). Despite the 63 percent decrease in screening services, Planned Parenthood continues to tout its screening efforts as a major part of their public advertising."

In the end, no one is suggesting that women go without the care they so desperately need. President Trump, congressional Republicans, and the majority of Americans are simply asking that they get it from community health centers -- which not only serve 18 million more people a year but don't perform abortions. And unlike Planned Parenthood, they have the added benefit of not being referred for criminal prosecution by the U.S. House! Here's the bottom line: If thousands of nonprofits can perform quality community outreach without $550 million in taxpayer funds, so can Planned Parenthood.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

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

PRAYER MATTERS:

"To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." - Karl Barth; "Prayer is inviting God into a seemingly impossible situation and trusting/resting in His love and grace to accomplish His perfect will in His perfect time and for His greatest glory." - Stan 

2/7 American Center for Law and Justice: American Pastor Andrew Brunson still languishes in a Turkish prison. He’s one of 19 prisoners in a 10-person cell. He’s the only Christian. Pastor Andrew has been falsely charged with “membership in an armed terrorist organization.” He has served and loved the people of Turkey for more than two decades. Now this U.S. citizen is in extreme danger – falsely charged for his Christian faith. We are representing his family and have launched an aggressive global campaign demanding that Turkey – a fellow member of NATO – release him immediately. We’re working on Capitol Hill with our nation’s leaders, through our international offices, and around the globe to secure the release of Pastor Andrew. Now, we are preparing to send a critical legal letter to Turkey’s president in the next few days. Time is of the essence. Sign our letter before we send it. Join the fight. Be Pastor Andrew’s voice. He needs it now more than ever.Sign Our Petition: Free American Pastor Andrew Brunson.https://aclj.org/persecuted-church/free-american-pastor-andrew-brunson 

12/13- American Center For Law and Justice: On trial for their faith, two Christian pastors in Sudan face death. Christian Pastors Hassan Abduraheem and Kuwa Shamal have been brutally imprisoned for nearly a year – 359 days – in deplorable conditions. Their trial has been delayed time and time again.Their churches miss them. Their families need them. They face possible death sentences because they are Christians. At the ACLJ, we've launched a massive international legal advocacy campaign for their freedom. We're preparing critical legal letters to Sudan, raising their case with world leaders, and preparing action at the U.N. They could be sentenced to hang for their faith if the world is silent. Christian Pastors Hassan and Kuwa need your voice now. Time is of the essence, as the trial continues. Our silence could be their death.Other Christians facing death in Sudan are now free because you spoke out. Demand Sudan free Pastors Hassan and Kuwa now. Sign Our Petition: Save Christian Pastors from Death...https://aclj.org/persecuted-church/save-christian-pastors-from-possible-death?

PRAY FOR AMERICA: THANK GOD for His many blessings on America throughout it's history. May we then ask that AMERICA once again be a blessing TO GOD, by once again submitting to HIS will in our affairs - both personal and national - that He may truly "heal our land." (2 Chron. 7:14) Short of that, we should not be saying "God Bless America"but instead "God be merciful towards America!"

PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS:  1) Pray for President Trump and his advisers, that they would select Godly leaders at the federal level who will be accountable to do an excellent job (or be fired!) ; that he would seek God's wisdom and be enabled to lead our country effectively in the years ahead; and 2) Pray our leaders at every level of government will Spirit-filled, leading us with Godly wisdom and integrity; that they will  only pass legislation and enact policies that will benefit Americans today as well as future generations and NOT do any lasting harm.

SUPREME COURT: PRAY 1) that the Senate will quickly confirm Judge Gorsuch for the Supeme Court, and 2) that the justices will only hand down decisions that are Constitutionally sound and in the best interests of our country now and for future generations.

Other World-Wide Prayer Requests:

 This is a photo of 3 of Asia's daughters holding a picture of their imprisoned mother.

A Christian Mother's Mandatory Death Penalty Could Be Overturned. PRAY and Sign the Petition Now! - https://aclj.org/persecuted-church/save-christian-mom-asia-bibi-from-execution? 
Learn about Christian Persecution; Check out the World Watch List:

http://live.opendoorsusa.org/wwl/?utm_source=action&utm_medium=email&utm_content=content-banner&utm_campaign=may-2016
PRAY for the ON-GOING crisis now happening in IRAQ/SYRIA.  Pray that coalition forces will be able to destroy the leadership and infrastructure of ISIS.