2258 (3/31) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Congress Funds Planned Parenthood - Congressional Lucies, Evangelical Charlie Browns?"

"CONGRESS FUNDS PLANNED PARENTHOOD - Congressional Lucies, Evangelical Charlie Browns?" - by John Stonestreet /Roberto Rivera , March 29, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/03/breakpoint-congress-funds-planned-parenthood/ [AS I SEE IT: You could almost hear the collective groan by everyone who is pro-life across America when it was announced that the Republicans again did not find a way to de-fund Planned Parenthood even with the majority they have in Congress. It is surely tempting to want to just "throw them out" and hope to find those with more political courage and will. And yes, there must be some way pro-lifers can make their disgust clearly known to all those who failed again. But I do agree that the ultimate goal of seeing abortions curtailed if not fully ended will ultimately only come from individuals - when given the choice of aborting - choose life for their unborn instead. As we continue to pray for our leaders to have the needed courage and will to do the right thing, let us pray just as fervently that more and more Moms with unplanned pregnancies, who have the choice,  will choose rightly for LIFE.- Stan]

     Our GOP-majority Congress just forked over $500 million to Planned Parenthood. Have we been duped?

     To paraphrase William Wilberforce’s foe Lord Melbourne, things have come to a pretty pass when the Babylon Bee becomes our “go-to” source for accurate reporting. If you don’t know about the Bee, it’s a Christian website specializing in satirical “news stories” poking fun at the foibles of evangelical subculture. As the Washington Post called it, it’s “fake news that’s good for the soul.” A couple examples of the Bee’s spiritual gift of sarcasm are “Mountain Climber Recovering After Decision to Let Go and Let God.” And my favorite, “Federal Judge orders Chris Tomlin to Stop Adding Choruses to Perfectly Good Hymns.” That’s pretty funny stuff!
    
    But a recent Bee headline wasn’t so funny. It read: “Republicans Clarify That By ‘Defund Planned Parenthood’ They Meant ‘Give Them $500 Million Every Year.’” It was a pointed reference to the recent $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill passed by Congress and signed by the president last week. As you can imagine, the bill contained something for almost everyone.
And by everyone that included Planned Parenthood—to the tune of $500 million. 
     This is the same Planned Parenthood that Republican leaders and candidates have explicitly promised to defund for years in exchange for our support as pro-life voters.
     This is the same Planned Parenthood caught on tape recently selling parts of aborted fetuses.
     Yes, this same Planned Parenthood whose federal funding remains intact.
So it was almost impossible to see the satire in the Bee’s statement that the GOP is assuring “conservative voters that when it comes to the 2018 midterm elections, and especially the 2020 presidential election, they can trust their Republican politicians ‘100%’ when they say they will certainly defund Planned Parenthood.”

     Anybody else getting the impression that we’re like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy’s football? So, what should we do?

     Well, what we shouldn’t do is make excuses for those who broke their promises. Sure, the Democrats are far worse on abortion. But if being better than Democrats on abortion is our only criterion, we’ve set the bar awfully low, especially given the GOP’s dependence on evangelical voters.
     This is just one more reason to be wary of what French philosopher Jacques Ellul called the “Political Illusion,” the belief that our problems are primarily political ones with only political solutions. Or as Chuck Colson would put it, “Salvation doesn’t come on Air Force One.” Or, as in this case, it won’t be rung in by the Speaker’s gavel.

     Of course, there are many fine people in Congress and this administration who share our pro-life values and our goals. I’m certainly not urging a withdrawal from the political sphere.

     But there are certain limits of what we should expect from the political sphere. After all, so much of what is wrong with our society, including that which puts unborn children at risk, doesn’t lend itself to political solutions. They’re matters of culture, “the sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another.” Our ultimate goal in confronting and opposing abortion isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood, not even to make abortion illegal, though both of those things would great. Ultimately what we want is for abortion to be both personally and culturally unthinkable.

     And we should just know that for too many in the GOP, stopping abortion is just not a priority. But we can make it clear to our lawmakers that it is a priority for us. The government’s funded through September, which means they’ll have another shot then to defund this evil and motivate their evangelical base. You know, right before those mid-terms elections.


[italics and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - We should definitely hold our elected government officials accountable to their promises. But we also realize that, as John has reiterated, solutions to so many of our cultural problems cannot be found in politics. So pray for our lawmakers, and show them that life matters to us.
"Republicans Clarify That By ‘Defund Planned Parenthood’ They Meant ‘Give Them $500 Million Every Year" - Babylon Bee | March 23, 2018; http://babylonbee.com/news/republicans-clarify-that-by-defund-planned-parenthood-they-meant-give-them-500-million-every-year/
The Political Illusion - Jacques Ellul | Wipf & Stock Publishers - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9781606089767

#2257 GOOD FRIDAY: "'I Thrist' - Good Friday and Jesus of the Scars"

"'I THRIST' - GOOD FRIDAY AND JESUS OF THE SCARS" - by John Stonestreet , Breakpoint.org, April 14, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/04/breakpoint-i-thirst/

     Today, on Good Friday, we remember, honor, and reflect on the God who entered the world of human suffering on our behalf.

 “I thirst.”

      Only John’s Gospel records these words. They were uttered by Jesus, we’re told, not as a guttural physical response, but with intention: “Knowing that all was now finished,” Jesus said, “I thirst” in order to fulfill the Scriptures (John 19:28). And yet, we ought not think these words are manufactured or insincere either.

Earlier in his ministry, Jesus had, on the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles, “stood up and cried out, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water’.” (John 7:37). “The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:13-14).

And now, on the cross, He who said these words was Himself thirsty. Why are we told this? Why is the fact that Jesus thirsted important?

     The world changed on All Saints Day in 1755. In Lisbon, Portugal, a ten-minute earthquake, followed by a tsunami and fires, killed an estimated 60,000 people, many crushed by collapsing churches where they had gathered to celebrate that Christian holy day.

     According to moral philosopher Susan Neiman, for many Western intellectuals this incident of natural evil proved that God could no longer be trusted. The French philosopher Voltaire offered scathing words in a poem:

    “Are you then sure,” he wrote, “the power which would create

    The universe and fix the laws of fate,

    Could not have found for man a proper place,

    But earthquakes must destroy the human race?”

And so in the modern era, trust moved from God to man. And it seemed to work: the next few centuries were marked by technological advances, scientific progress, and scholarly criticism of the Bible.

     However, the peak of modernism was the 20th century, which revealed that trust in man was badly misplaced: the mechanized slaughter of millions in two world wars, Communism, Auschwitz, and the threat of nuclear annihilation. So where do we turn now if we can’t trust God or man?

      The cross directly addresses this world of moral and natural evil: As the prophet Isaiah foretold, “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed (Is 53:5).

     The cross proves that God is not aloof from human suffering as Voltaire had imagined, nor will human evil have the final say. Our God once thirsted, like we do. He bled, as we do, in this existence of fallen people and a fallen world. In Christ, God entered the world of human suffering, suffered Himself, defeated suffering and now has the scars to prove it.

Nearly two centuries after Voltaire, theologian Edward Shillito, offered a poem with a very different take on the suffering we experience. Here are two stanzas of that poem:

     “If we have never sought, we seek Thee now;

    Thine eyes burn through the dark, our only stars;

    We must have sight of thorn-pricks on Thy brow;

    We must have Thee, O Jesus of the Scars. . .

    “The other gods were strong, but Thou wast weak;

    They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;

    But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak,

    And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.”

Today on Good Friday, we remember, we worship and proclaim this God, Jesus of the scars. To Him be all glory and praise forever and ever. Amen.

     And before I leave you today, I want to invite you to come to BreakPoint.org for a free pdf that the Colson Center team has prepared on the seven last sayings of Christ from the cross. It’s a beautiful booklet, with reflections from our team and sacred art to help you reflect this Easter season on what Jesus suffered and said for our benefit. Again, it’s at BreakPoint.org.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - The Seven Last Sayings of Jesus on the Cross - http://breakpoint.org/free/

#2256 (3/29) "Gun Rights Actually Are a Civil Rights Issue [but not for the reasons some are talking]"

"GUN RIGHTS ARE ACTUALLY A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE [but not for the reasons some are talking]" -  Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / March 28, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/28/gun-rights-are-a-civil-rights-issue [AS I SEE IT: By the wording of the title of this article, you could get the wrong impression about what this article is about, certainly not what too many are advocating these days. The teaching of history explained in this article is fascinating and dare I see little understood by Americans, and certainly something that the mainstream media has so fit not to include in the on-going promotion of "gun rights." Also, it amazes me that this information made it's way on "The View"; I would very much like to know how those in that group who hold steadfastly to liberal positions responded to the former Sec. of State. - Stan]

     Modern protests demanding more gun control have been likened to the civil rights movement, but civil rights and gun rights often have gone together in American history. (Photo: David Tulis/UPI/Newscom)

     It is becoming increasingly fashionable for those who support gun control to compare the post-Parkland, student-driven movement to the civil rights movements of earlier generations.
“Young people said, ‘We will not tolerate what our ancestors have tolerated. We’ve had enough and we’re willing to fight for it and we’re willing to march in the streets for it and, if necessary, die for it,’” TV personality Oprah said in comparing the student marches to civil rights demonstrations. 
     One writer in The New Yorker wrote of the pro-gun control March for Our Lives protest: “The Parkland students seem to instinctively understand that their fight not only crosses racial and class lines but also exists on a historical continuum, as an extension of the civil-rights movement.” Another recent article in The Washington Post, headlined “Gun rights are about keeping white men on top,” even tried to connect American gun culture and support for gun rights to racism. However, the author’s historical argument, whether intentionally or not, actually reveals that it is gun control, not gun rights, that generally has been used for the purposes of white supremacy.

Gun rights and civil rights, historically, have gone hand in hand.
     In a recent interview on “The View,” former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighted the importance of preserving the Second Amendment as an individual right, in some cases the last line of defense in protecting life and liberty. “Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,” Rice said on the show. “I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late ‘50s, early ‘60s. There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham police were going to protect you.” “I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were, he would have rounded them up,” she said. “So I don’t favor some things like gun registration.”

‘The Work of the Abolitionists Is Not Finished’
     In the aftermath of the Civil War, a ferocious battle emerged over how to preserve both federalism and the individual rights of citizens in the states. Gun rights, in some cases, were the only safeguard of liberty and personal safety.
     Some of the first states to pass highly restrictive gun control legislation were, in fact, in the Reconstruction-era South. They implemented so-called “black codes” to restrict the rights of former slaves, including the right to bear arms. One 1866 Alabama law baldly stated that “it shall not be lawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of color in this state, to own firearms, or carry about his person a pistol or other deadly weapon.” The law also made it illegal “to sell, give, or lend firearms or ammunition of any description whatever, to any freedman, free negro, or mulatto.”
    Famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass warned about these abuses and said “the work of the abolitionists is not finished” until the Second Amendment and others rights could be protected.
["Right Side of History: It’s Time to Listen More to the Words of Frederick Douglass"

Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / February 21, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/02/21/right-side-of-history-its-time-to-listen-more-to-the-words-of-frederick-douglass/ ]
     This provoked a federal response, according to historian Stephen P. Halbrook. Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which guaranteed to other men “any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons, including the right to … inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms.” President Andrew Johnson vetoed this legislation, but he was overridden by Congress.

These battles over the protection of individual rights culminated in the passage of the 14th Amendment.
     The 14th Amendment was designed to prevent states from violating the Bill of Rights, which at the time applied only to the federal government. However, even after the passage of the 14th Amendment, racial conflict and battles over gun rights continued for generations.
     As Rice explained, individual firearm ownership was often the only protection black Americans had under some legal authorities that did little to protect them. As Ida B. Wells, one of the founders of the NAACP and an early civil rights leader, wrote in 1892, a year in which an extraordinary number of brutal lynchings took place: “The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.” “The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well,” Wells continued, “is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

An Inalienable Right
     Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted this history in his concurring opinion in the Chicago v. McDonald case in which the court ruled that Otis McDonald, a black Army veteran, had been deprived of his Second Amendment rights by the city of Chicago. Thomas wrote about how the infamous Dred Scott decision before the Civil War was meant to strip black Americans of citizenship and “the constitutionally enumerated rights of ‘the full liberty of speech’ and the right ‘to keep and carry arms.’”
     After the war, former Confederate states attempted to curtail firearm ownership for black citizens, and mob and militia violence against those citizens often went unchecked by local authorities. “Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the 14th Amendment had just made citizens,” Thomas wrote. Thomas concluded that in the opinion of the Founders and authors of the 14th Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty.”

As Thomas, Douglass, Rice, and others so clearly articulated, gun rights—not gun control—have been an essential buttress to civil rights.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.

#2255 (3/28) "The Seven Last Sayings of Jesus - The Lord’s Words, Haydn’s Music"

[For one tired of "Spring" being used in place of Easter, I smile when I hear the term "Nor'Easter (: ]

"THE SEVEN LAST SAYINGS OF JESUS - THE LORD'S WORDS, HAYDN'S  MUSIC" - by Eric Metaxas / Roberto Rivera, Breakpoint.org, March 26, 2018;http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/03/breakpoint-seven-last-sayings-jesus-2/

Welcome to Holy Week. Today we offer reflections—and music—on the seven last sayings of Jesus.

In 2012, the English poet Ruth Padel accepted a commission from Manchester’s Hallé Orchestra to write poems that would be read between the movements of Joseph Haydn’s “The Seven Last Words of Our Savior on the Cross.” Writing about her experience two years later in The Guardian, Padel called her acceptance of the commission “rash.” Her father was a psychoanalyst, her mother was a great-grand-daughter of Darwin—what could she have to say on this subject? Well, that’s a good question. By her own admission, Padel had “no idea if what [she] did works theologically, but musicians find it OK to work with.” Thankfully, we don’t have to settle for “OK to work with.”

In 1783, the Cathedral of Cadiz, Spain commissioned the great composer Joseph Haydn to write a musical setting for what are known as the “Seven Last Words (or Sayings)” of Jesus on the cross. 
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the “Seven Last Words,” they are “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do;” “Today you will be with me in Paradise;” “Behold your son/Behold your mother;” “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” “I thirst;” “It is finished;” and finally, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.”

Haydn’s opus consists of nine parts: an introduction, followed by a musical meditation on each of the seven sayings, and then completed by a section entitled “Il Terremoto,” which is “earthquake” in both Italian and Spanish. Il Terremoto, of course, refers to the earth quaking in Matthew 27 when Christ “yielded his spirit” and died.

At the original performance at Cadiz Cathedral, the Bishop spoke one of the sayings of Jesus, “delivered a discourse thereon,” and this was followed by Haydn’s musical meditation on the words. Since Haydn never specified what, if anything, should be said between movements, subsequent performers have felt free to add, or not add, whatever was “OK to work with.” 

But, as the Vermeer Quartet learned, paying heed to what works theologically is the way to go. In 1988, they won a Grammy nomination for their performance, which featured excerpts of sermons by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Billy Graham between movements. 
     The recording came about because music-only performances left them with the “polite applause of a worn-out audience.” So, they decided to “restore Haydn’s work to its original sacred setting.”  The experience was “transforming.” As the quartet’s violinist told the New York Times, “Though we knew the music so very well . . . we had never before been obliged to relate it in its intended context.” Haydn, who typically began his manuscripts with the phrase “in nomine Domini,” “in the name of the Lord,” and ended them with “Laus Deo,” “praise be to God,” would, no doubt, approve.

I think you will, too. Here is a brief excerpt from “Terremoto,” Haydn’s musical setting of the earthquake that left no mistake that something earth-shattering happened that first Good Friday. [NOTE last reference item below.]


Now, before I leave you today, I want to urge you to download a special booklet that the Colson Center has prepared in anticipation of Good Friday and Easter—a series of meditations on the seven last sayings of Christ. It’s free, and it’s at BreakPoint.org. [http://www.breakpoint.org/7sayings]


[italics and bold emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Click the links below for more information on Haydn’s work “The Seven Last Words of Our Saviour on the Cross” and to listen to a portion of the music he composed for Passion Week. And click here to download the free pdf booklet “The Seven Last Sayings of Jesus from the Cross” put together by the Colson Center.
The Seven Last Sayings of Jesus from the Cross - pdf booklet | Colson Center - http://www.breakpoint.org/7sayings/
"Beliefs; Haydn's music on Christ's last words, a transforming journey from concert hall to sacred setting." - Peter Steinfels | New York Times | March 26, 2005; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804EFDC143FF935A15750C0A9639C8B63
"How to do justice to Christ's Last Words" - Ruth Padel | The Guardian | April 18, 2014; https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/18/christ-last-words-ruth-padel-poetry-haydn
Muti - Haydn - Il terremoto - Presto e con tutta forza (do minore) - Youtube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx_ZdQqhXlM

#2254 (3/27) "Trump on Military: Readiness, Set, Go"

"TRUMP ON MILITARY: READINESS, SET, GO" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 26, 2018; https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20180326/trump-military [AS I SEE IT: There was much in the recently approved omnibus budget that conservatives were appalled by. But the needed increase in the military's budget (spending which I pray will be carefully monitored) AND this needed clarification of the transgender policies of the last administration was very welcomed. It's just tragic that the mainstream media for the most part has neglected to explain why these clarifications were made and not just refer to it simply as an "equality" issue. - Stan]

     It hasn't been the easiest of decades for the U.S. military. Eight years of living on a shoestring budget with a commander-in-chief who cared more about promoting the letters LGBT than preventing W-A-R took its toll. Now, 14 months into the gutsy leadership of President Trump, things are finally starting to change. And on Friday, Americans saw how much.

For our troops, the weekend started off with a bang. They cheered the news that Trump had followed through on his promise to start rebuilding the military -- first, with a $61 billion bump in funding, and then, with a rejection of the political correctness that upended the military under Barack Obama. In the roller coaster months since President Trump's first transgender announcement, no one was quite sure how the White House's formal policy would take shape. To most people's relief, the Pentagon's final memo did what the commander-in-chief promised: put readiness first.

Under the memo released Friday, both Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson signed their names to a 40-page document that will help free our military from the radical grip of the Obama years. Building on the GOP platform he swore to uphold, the president took a strong and decisive step away from the uncertainty that Ash Carter injected into the military when he tore down the barriers to transgender service. "Military standards are high for a reason," Secretary Mattis wrote in the report, "the trauma of war, which all service members must be prepared to face, demands physical, mental, and moral standards that will give all service members the greatest chance to survive their ordeal with their bodies, minds, and moral character intact. The Department would be negligent to sacrifice those standards for any cause."

In the new policy, people who identify as transgender, but who haven't been formally diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" and have not undergone a "gender transition" are free to serve or join the military -- with one catch: they must serve as their biological sex. On the other hand, anyone with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria (which the Pentagon defines as someone who requires "substantial medical treatment, including through medical drugs or surgery") are barred from the military, except under limited circumstances. While there are certain caveats, including when a person entered the military and in what state of transition, the administration's decision sends a powerful message that the days of reckless social engineering in the military are over.

After digging into the science and the instability Obama's policy created, Mattis and his team were more convinced than ever that letting this type of gender chaos into the military presents a "considerable risk" to its "effectiveness and lethality." And they had more than enough evidence to back it up. The memo does a great job dismantling the flawed RAND study that former Secretary Ash Carter used to prop up Obama's move. DOD insists that RAND "mischaracterizes or overstates the reports on which it rests its conclusions" (p. 39). "In fact," officials write, "the RAND study itself repeatedly emphasized the lack of quality data on these issues and qualified its conclusions accordingly" -- a fact the last administration never bothered to mention.

The Defense Department also takes Carter's regime to task, explaining that they found several instances where "standards were adjusted or relaxed to accommodate service by transgender persons" (p. 19) -- which is somewhat ironic, given the Left's insistence on "equality." To bend the rules and justify their decision, Carter's team had to ignore stacks of research from their own ranks. For example, people who suffer from "gender dysphoria" in the military are eight times more likely to commit suicide (p. 21) and nine times more likely to have negative "mental health encounters." And while the taxpayer-funded treatments go on, their service peers are the ones left picking up the slack. "To access recruits with higher rates of anticipated unavailability for deployment thrusts a heavier burden on those who would deploy more often" (p. 27).

While Democrats like Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) fire off angry tweets, arguing that the president's position "cuts directly across the drive for equality," DOD points out just how mistaken they are. If any policy was unfair, it was Obama's! As Defense officials point out, if a service member had to have genital reconstruction surgery because of a traumatic combat injury, they would have been disqualified from military service without a waiver. But if someone decided to change sexes because they were struggling with their identity, their waiver would be granted (p. 28). That's how twisted Obama's agenda was -- rewarding service members with mental struggles on one hand and punishing hurting heroes on the other.

Meanwhile, as military leaders have said out for years, there is no such thing as a "right to serve" in the military.
     "The vast majority of Americans from ages 17-24 -- that is, 71 percent -- are ineligible to join the military for medical, mental, or behavioral reasons," Mattis points out. "Transgender persons with gender dysphoria are no less valued members of our nation than all other categories of persons who are disqualified from military service. The Department honors all citizens who wish to dedicate, and perhaps even lay down, their lives in defense of the nation -- even when the Department, in the best interest of the military, must decline to grant their wish" (p. 6).

Unfortunately, the far Left isn't interested in the facts or the potential harms of Obama's position. All they care about is using the military to advance their fringe agenda at the very real expense of national security. The Pentagon's responsibility, Mattis reminds everyone, is to fight and win wars. "...[I]n light of the various sources of uncertainty in this area and informed by the data collected since the Carter policy took effect, the Department is not convinced that these risks could be responsibly dismissed or that even negligible harms should be incurred..."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the president's decision "cowardly." As usual, she's wrong. Few things take more guts than standing up to liberal extremists and doing what's in the best interest of America's security -- and the brave men and women in uniform. We should all applaud the Trump administration for making decisions that keep our military strong and our country safe.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2253 (3/26) "I Went to the March for Our Lives Protest. Here Are My 7 Takeaways."

"I WENT TO THE MARCH FOR OUR LIVES PROTEST. HERE ARE MY TAKEAWAYS." - Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / March 24, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/24/went-march-lives-protest-7-takeaways [AS I SEE IT: While I can respect that some of those who led the March were intelligent and eloquent, and while I can understand the emotions that the Parkland shooting has created, I have to wonder about the vast majority who seemed unaware that all that they were involved in was organized by non-students who had a particular political agenda - gun control and government control. Too often young people are easily led by those who tug on their emotions and do not challenge their thinking. They latch on to simplistic solutions without considering the full consequences of certain solutions. Like ordering fast food, they want things to happen now and look for easy answers. The fact that no other solutions [other than gun control] were presented at this rally and in fact were shut out tells you a lot about who organized and led these students. As I've noted in a previous post, more students die every day at their own hands by suicides than by any gun violence and these young people know it. Why not speak out about what causes students to want death more than life? What about someone challenging these young people to be more engaged in helping prevent teen suicides among their peers than talking about gun control? - Stan]

People from around the country came to Washington, D.C., to protest in favor of gun control. (Photo: Karen Schiely/TNS/Newscom)

Tens of thousands of protesters—and maybe more—gathered in Washington, D.C., and around the country Saturday to protest in favor of gun control. The demonstrations, called the March for Our Lives, featured children calling for an end to gun violence and ultimately stricter gun control laws.

The Daily Signal hit the streets to observe the event and see what it was all about. The following are my observations from walking through the crowd and assessing its common themes.

1) A Left-Wing Movement
     It may seem painfully obvious, but it is worth noting the march in Washington was clearly a left-wing protest. As Julie Gunlock at The Federalist noted, some parents were led to believe that the March 14 National School Walkout would be about memorializing victims of the Parkland shooting. It wasn’t. “The real mission of the walkout is to demand Congress pass more restrictive gun laws,” Gunlock wrote.
     This goal was even more obvious at the March for Our Lives. Gun control is certainly associated with the modern left, but it’s clear from observing the protesters that many were involved with other left-wing movements. The pink hats from the 2017 Women’s March made a widespread reappearance, as did numerous anti-Trump or generally anti-Republican signs.

The crowd was certainly not a representative slice of what the country as a whole thinks about gun control, nor did it represent the opinions of most young Americans. As The Daily Signal recently reported, polls show that millennials are no more in favor of gun control than their parents or grandparents.

2) Well-Organized and Well-Funded
     This was certainly one of the largest gatherings I’ve seen in Washington, D.C., and one of the most highly organized. Clearly, staff from a huge number of activist pro-gun control organizations showed up, as would be expected, but there were also people on almost every street corner trying to register people to vote.
     People carried signs from gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
     Undoubtedly, many people from around the country came to the protest out of a sincere belief that they were making a positive difference to end violence, but there’s also no doubt that a huge amount of professional organization and money went into this march. A series of Hollywood celebrities funded the march, including Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Steven Spielberg, and others.      As BuzzFeed reported, a litany of leftist organizations and politicos got involved, including the George Soros-backed MoveOn.org, Women’s March LA, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and, curiously, Planned Parenthood.
    There were certainly many children present, but there’s no way they could have put this all together on their own. Outside help and organization was apparent.

3) Prayer Is Out
     The March for Our Lives protesters were seemingly not fans of prayer. Many protesters specifically condemned the act of offering prayers in the wake of shootings, pitting it against political action. Political action is often important, but it was strange to see so many signs specifically aimed at condemning prayer.
     In the wake of the Parkland shooting, liberal calls to action have centered on banning guns. But such calls have neglected other serious issues relating to school shootings that have nothing to do with firearms, including the way America deals with the mentally ill.
    Another issue is how federal and local policies have let dangerous people, like the Parkland shooter, slip through the cracks. Often the problem is not with a lack of laws, but a failure to enforce the laws that already exist.

There are a number of serious proposals that would tackle the issue of school safety without confiscating guns or seriously curtailing constitutional rights. See, for instance, The Heritage Foundation’s School Safety Initiative. [https://www.heritage.org/school-safety] But this doesn’t fit the narrative of those leading the March for Our Lives protest, who from the outset have been committed to gun control.

4) Those Who Disagree Viewed as Complicit in Murder
     While the name March for Our Lives may be a coincidence, it certainly sounds similar to the March for Life, a pro-life rally that takes place each January in Washington, D.C. Numerous signs claimed that those who back gun rights don’t care about the lives of children or are responsible for deaths. Others specifically linked the pro-abortion and gun control movements.
And many condemned the National Rifle Association for having blood on its hands, or insinuated that the pro-gun organization has bought off politicians to support its policy interests. One protester even compared the NRA to ISIS.

5) Second Amendment Seen as Problematic and Outdated
     While gun control advocates have generally been cautious about outright attacking the Second Amendment, many of the protesters had no such reservations. Some lamented that former President Barack Obama didn’t confiscate guns. Several protesters questioned Supreme Court decisions upholding gun ownership as a constitutional right. 
    Many held signs saying essentially that the Second Amendment is irrelevant because the Founders wrote it in the 18th century. But following that logic, one would have to question all the other provisions of the Constitution that were written by the Founding generation, including the First Amendment. After all, the internet didn’t exist in the 18th century. Does this mean that free speech on the internet shouldn’t be protected? And what about the constitutionally protected right to assembly, also guaranteed by the decidedly 18th-century First Amendment? These protesters seem to at least value that piece of constitutional inheritance.

6) Fuzzy Facts
     It was clear that while many of the protesters were articulate in defending their views, they were misinformed about some of the facts surrounding the gun debate.
     For instance, in an interview with The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood, one marcher repeated the thoroughly debunked claim that there had been 18 school shootings this year prior to Parkland. This shocking number, repeated by Obama and some major media outlets, was a bogus stat cooked up by a pro-gun control group. Almost none of the incidents used in that statistic can be described as anything like a school shooting—several were suicides or random shootings that simply took place near a school campus. The Washington Post even called the statistic “flat wrong.”
     There were other examples of misinformation as well, including one sign that called for a ban on “automatic weapons,” which have actually been banned since 1934.
     Unfortunately, Americans have received a huge amount of disinformation about guns and gun control, much of it perpetuated by the media. Read my piece about the six common media myths about gun control. ["6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control" - Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / February 15, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/02/15/6-common-media-myths-gun-control/]

7) Not a Gun-Free Zone
     The March for Our Lives crowd may have wanted to disarm Americans, but the event hardly took place in a gun-free zone. Armed police covered the streets to ensure the safety of those gathering in the nation’s capital. In fact, there were even armored military vehicles embedded within groups of protesters.
     Some signs essentially called for only the government to have firearms. Of course, the idea that only the government and the military should have access to firearms would not have sat well with the Founders. They feared a government powerful enough to disarm the citizenry and a standing army. That’s why we have the Second Amendment.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.


"Obama-Era Policies Helped Keep Parkland Shooter Under the Radar. Here’s What Went Wrong." - Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / March 05, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/05/obama-era-policies-helped-keep-parkland-shooter-radar-heres-went-wrong/

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

"Surprise, Surprise: March For Our Lives Once Again Shows Why The Left Can’t Be Trusted On Gun Control" -  Matt Vespa : Mar 25, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/24/went-march-lives-protest-7-takeaways/
"Parkland-Style Shootings Are Devastating but Highly Unusual" - John G. Malcolm / @malcolm_john / Amy Swearer/ @AmySwearer / March 22, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/22/parkland-style-shootings-are-devastating-but-highly-unusual 

"March for Our Lives: A Perspective You Won’t Get From the Mainstream Media" 
- Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood / March 24, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/24/march-lives-perspective-wont-get-mainstream-media
"We Hear You: 6 Young Americans Whose School Safety Ideas Don’t Include Restricting Gun Rights" - Ken McIntyre / @KenMac55 / March 25, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/25/we-hear-you-6-young-americans-who/
"The Big Gun Control March Fail" -  Rachel Alexander : Mar 26, 2018; https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2018/03/26/the-big-gun-control-march-fail-n2464583
     "...David Hogg, a student at Marjory Stoneman who ardently supports gun control, has been the most vocal face of the school since the shooting. He gave an interview with The Outline that was so profanity laden many news outlets could not reprint it. In it, he ridiculed people his parents’ age for being too stupid to fix gun violence. At the rally, he ended his speech with his fist straight out diagonally in the air. Many compared it to a Nazi salute and the Hitler youth who supported gun control. 
       Students from Parkland who oppose gun control were excluded from participating. Second Amendment supporter Hunter Pollack, whose sister Meadow was killed in the shooting, wanted to speak but organizers would not let him. Celebrities included Kim Kardashian, whose presence didn’t do much to influence people. She drew a lot of attention for badly photoshopping a photo of herself to look thinner that completely squashed a car in the background. 
     The rally was essentially a demand to erode the Second Amendment. It should have been called “March Against Our Rights.” The marchers claim they don’t trust the government, yet they want the government to take their guns away. They say they’re calling for common sense legislation, but clearly they don’t understand what assault weapons are. Over 80 percent of mass shootings are carried out with handguns – not assault weapons. In 2016, 7,105 people were killed by handguns. Only 374 were killed with rifles.   
    The reality is, the NRA is all about promoting gun safety. It stands for the exact opposite of using guns for violence. The NRA is about protecting innocent people from bad people using guns to hurt them. Taking guns away from innocent people trying to protect themselves will just create more victims. Gun control advocates know once they can get approval to ban assault weapons, it will become a lot easier to ban handguns next."

#2252 (3/25) SUNDAY SPECIAL: 'The Church's Infatuation With Youth - We Need the Gray Heads"

"THE CHURCH'S INFATUATION WITH YOUTH - WE NEED THE GRAY HEADS" - by: Eric Metaxas / Stan Guthrie; Breakpont.org, March 23, 2018;http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/03/breakpoint-the-churchs-infatuation-with-youth/ [AS I SEE IT: I remember a time during my months of job searching several years ago when I was clearly turned down for a job because I didn't fit in with the rest of the workers by a supervisor who was 40 years younger than I! Also, I now attend a church where at least 95% of the congregants are younger than I and the worship music is almost always something so contemporary I have a hard time joining in. [I laugh every time I recall early on when I slipped and fell and nearly everyone around me rushed to help me up! ; nice but really not necessary (;] And yet, I believe God has called me there to offer what I can of my years of walking with the Lord and serving Him in the hopes that maybe I can still make a difference for Jesus. - Stan]

We all know America is obsessed with youth. But what about the church, and what do we do about it?

The magazine Psychology Today calls it “America’s Obsession with Never Growing Old.” Dale Archer writes, “It’s difficult to believe that our founding fathers powdered their wigs gray in order to appear older and wiser. That’s right—being old was in. No more! From hair dyes to Botox to Viagra to wrinkle creams to a plethora of surgical procedures, the race is on to remain forever young.”

The bias against growing old is not just cosmetic. According to the Wall Street Journal, complaints of age discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have increased in recent years. Paul Irving, chairman of the Milken Institute Center for the Future of Aging, says, “Workers over 50 are burdened by an outdated definition of ‘old.’ Despite evidence to the contrary, they are unfairly judged to be costly, less productive and agile, and unable to learn.” He adds that “older workers are rarely represented in corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives.”

So in a culture where everything “new” is said to be “improved” and everything old is said to be obsolete, why should we value our nation’s “seasoned citizens”?

For one thing, many older people have the wisdom, experience, and, yes, the energy, to still get the job done. Winston Churchill, profiled in the movie “The Darkest Hour,” helped save the West after he turned 65. Olga Khazan of The Atlantic points out that Robert Frost and William Carlos Williams wrote over 40 percent of their best poems after turning 50.

As people of faith, we know that the Bible teaches us to respect, even revere, those with more mileage under the hood. Proverbs 16:31 says, “Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained in the way of righteousness.” Some of the greatest saints were very gray indeed. Think of Abraham, Moses, and Sarah. Then add Daniel, Anna, and Paul.

So how are we doing as Christians in withstanding the cultural tide? Well, Christianity Today reports that while the average age of Protestant senior pastors has risen to 54—a decade older than 25 years ago—“older clergy may actually have a harder time finding new jobs as they age.” And “when a senior pastor spot opens up, some churches seek out younger candidates who are expected to serve long-term or draw in younger congregants.”

As someone who, truth be told, isn’t as young as he used to be, I find this bias against those with a little gray in their hair to be disappointing. Yes, the church needs young leaders, of course, but what it really needs are good leaders, of whatever age. And if we get younger leaders, who is going to train them? A recent Barna study said, “The bare facts of the matter are that even the wisest of older pastors is not here indefinitely, and his wisdom will be lost to the community of faith unless it is invested with the next generation.”

Andrew Root, author of “Faith Formation in a Secular Age: Responding to the Church’s Obsession with Youthfulness,” says that churches have bought into Madison Avenue’s siren song that “authenticity” is paramount and can be found only by catering to young people.

In an interview at Religion News Service, Root quotes Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who seemed prophetic when he said in his day, “The church has been more obsessed with the youthful spirit than the Holy Spirit.” But “To encounter the Holy Spirit,” Root says, “means there is no longer slave nor free, male nor female, Gen Z or Baby Boomer, but all are one in the person of Christ.”

Amen to that. And while we’re paraphrasing Paul, let me add this: to each–young and old—is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - If your church leadership is not already doing so, encourage them to tap into the talent, wisdom and expertise of their “over 40” congregants. It benefits the local church body, and provides a great example to the culture of the value of every individual’s gifts, no matter what their age.
"Campus Recruiting Hurts Older Workers, Suit Against PricewaterhouseCoopers Claims" - 
Kelsey Gee | Wall Street Journal | February 28, 2018; https://www.wsj.com/articles/suit-claims-pwcs-campus-recruiting-disadvantages-older-job-seekers-1519850508
"Forever Young: America's Obsession With Never Growing Old" - Dale Archer, M.D. | Psychology Today | October 2, 2013; https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201310/forever-young-americas-obsession-never-growing-old
"Responding to American Christianity’s obsession with youth" - Jonathan Merritt | Religion News Service | March 1, 2018; https://www.religionnews.com/2018/03/01/responding-to-american-christianitys-obsession-with-youth/
"Better With Age: Overcoming Our Obsession With Youth" - Martha Hiefield | AdAge.com | November 16, 2016; http://adage.com/article/agency-viewpoint/age-overcoming-obsession-youth/306616/
"Only 1 in 7 Senior Pastors Is Under 40" - Kate Shellnutt | Christianity Today | January 26, 2017; http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/january/only-1-in-7-senior-pastors-is-under-40-barna.html
Faith Formation in a Secular Age: Responding to the Church's Obsession with Youthfulness
- Andrew Root | Baker Academic Publishers | October 2017 - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780801098468

#2251 (3/24) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Becerra vs. Free Speech - California’s Law Is Burdensome and Wrong"

"BECERRA VS. FREE SPEECH - CALIFORNIA'S LAW IS BURDENSOME AND WRONG"- by John Stonestreet /  Roberto Rivera, Breakpoint.org, March 21, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/03/breakpoint-becerra-vs-free-speech/

Should pregnancy care centers be forced to advertise abortions? California says yes. And soon we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say.
     On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what might be the most important religious freedom case of this term. Now you’re probably thinking, “Wait—didn’t the Court already hear arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?” Yes, it did. But I’m talking about the other most important religious freedom case of this term: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

The case involves the California law that requires facilities licensed to provide ultrasounds and pregnancy tests to “disseminate a notice to all clients . . . stating, among other things, that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.” In addition, “unlicensed covered facilities” must declare that they do not provide medical services.

As we told you last November, this Act was squarely aimed at only one kind of facility: pro-life pregnancy centers.” Pro-life pregnancy centers are being required to display this notice prominently in their facilities and in their advertisements. The law even dictates the size of the font to be used. California’s attempt to muzzle a message it disagrees with couldn’t be plainer. Yet, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “whose reasoning,” as George Will wrote, “is frequently novel and whose rulings are frequently overturned,” upheld the law.

Yesterday, it was the Supreme Court’s turn to hear the case. In the words of the New York Times, the California law “met a skeptical reception” at First Street, Northeast DC.
     The word of the day—“burdensome.” Justice Kennedy called the statute’s notice requirement an “undue burden” on the right to free speech. Justice Sotomayor called them “burdensome and wrong.”
     California’s Deputy Solicitor General, who represented the state, was asked if, under the law, a group that put up a billboard that only read “Choose Life,” would be required to include the notice. After series of evasive answers that exasperated some of the justices, he finally had to admit, “yes.”
     The justices were also skeptical of the claim that the law was a neutral exercise in consumer protection and did not single out crisis pregnancy centers. Justice Elena Kagan used the word “gerrymandered” to describe the law’s drafting and application, “something,” she said “would be a serious First Amendment problem.”

In fact in some way or another, just about all of the justices seemed to agree with Justice Kennedy that the law’s goal was to “alter the content of [the centers’] message.” This was in keeping with the argument made by Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and General Counsel Michael Farris that with this law, the state had targeted “disfavored speakers,” whose message it disagrees with.

While Becerra is a primarily a free speech case, losing it would be disastrous. Not only would pregnancy centers be impaired, it would grant hostile governments the ability to target religiously-based dissent.

Farris summed up the stakes when he said that “When the government decides what people should and should not say, other freedoms are sure to disappear soon after. The government exists to serve its people, and not the other way around.” That’s why, as Farris reminds us, “Even if you are not pro-life, [you don’t want] the government setting up its own advertising mandates for nonprofit organizations and then punishing any who disagree.”

Thankfully, at least from what we saw yesterday, it looks like a majority of the justices will agree with him. But we shouldn’t let down our guard. The unconstitutionality of this law should have been obvious from the very start.

That’s a reminder that as Justice Scalia said two decades ago, pro-lifers are “currently a disfavored class” in the courts and many legislatures. Little since then has changed. So please, keep on praying.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Resources - As John highlights, the unconstitutionality of this particular law should have been apparent from the outset. We must continue to pray for the justices of the Supreme Court as they hear cases like this one and deliberate on the merits. Ask God to give them wisdom and clarity to uphold and protect the right to free speech which is foundational in our Constitution.
"Freedom of Speech Includes the Right to Remain Silent" - George Will | National Review | March 18, 2018; https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/freedom-of-speech-includes-the-right-to-remain-silent/
Legal Information Institute - U. S. Constitution, First Amendment - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------
" 7 Key Moments During Supreme Court Hearing Over Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Free Abortions" - Elizabeth Slattery, MAR 21, 2018; http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/21/7-key-moments-during-supreme-court-hearing-over-forcing-pregnancy-centers-to-promote-free-abortions/

#2250 (3/23) "The Omnibus Disgrace"

"THE OMNIBUS DISGRACE" - By THE EDITORS, March 22, 2018; 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/omnibus-spending-bill-disgrace-federal-budget/ [AS I SEE IT: It is infuriating that - given control of the government  by voters in 2016 - Republicans will not do what they said they would - from controlling spending, to insuring border security, to defunding Planned Parenthood. How the majority in both houses are pro-life and yet continue to set aside nearly a half a billion dollars for those who are committed to killing the unborn is simply nuts. No, they don't need to "compromise" on these issues to get support from Democrats; if that means shutting down the government for awhile, so be it. Isn't it time our leaders were more concerned with getting things right than just simply getting something done?We, the voters, need to ensure we have leaders who will do that or we have only ourselves to blame - as will future generations who will have to pay for the continuing debt we accumulate. We need leaders who have the courage to will finally say, Enough! - Stan] 

(James Lawler Duggan/Reuters)

     The omnibus spending bill was crafted in secret and will be passed under pressure; raises discretionary spending as the national debt grows; and fails to deliver on any major GOP priorities except increased defense spending. What might turn out to be the signature achievement of unified Republican government this year is the sort of legislation that would have been right at home in the Obama administration.

Start with the process. The 2,232-page bill was written in secret by leaders of both parties, unveiled Wednesday night, and passed by the House this afternoon. If the Senate doesn’t pass the budget by Friday, the government will shut down. So much for the 72-hour rule Republicans sought back during Barack Obama’s first term. The procedural abuse means that many lawmakers are voting up-or-down on a bill they didn’t write and had no opportunity to debate. It adds up to a breakdown of the budgetary process, a particular embarrassment for Congress given that passing budgets is one of the few duties that it still discharges with regularity.

The massive, 13 percent increase in discretionary spending was prefigured by the agreement on budget caps that congressional leaders reached in February. It remains remarkable that, even with control over the branches of elected government, the GOP cannot secure funding for the military without dangling such unnecessary spending for domestic programs.

The specifics of the spending aren’t much better. The bill provides funding for immigration enforcement both internally and at the border, but the devil is in the details. Set aside that the dollar amount falls far short of what the Trump administration had requested: There are onerous restrictions even on the money that is appropriated, limiting, for instance, the number of illegal aliens that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can detain. Even with the leverage of DACA, Republicans failed to meaningfully tighten the immigration system.

On health care, the hope of deregulating the individual insurance market to counteract rising premiums has been dashed. It seems increasingly likely that the GOP has given up on repealing and replacing Obamacare and is unable even to reduce its continuing burdens on the public.

Meanwhile, the $21 billion in infrastructure funding is not offset with permitting reforms that could spur private investment. We welcome the defense spending, and the funds devoted to combating the opioid epidemic might make a difference. But if this bill winds up being the only major piece of legislation Congress passes in 2018, this year will be a legislative waste.

During the Obama administration, we argued that the federal budgetary process had become an exercise in reckless liberal overreach. The federal government was abusing the budgetary process, we said, wasting money and expanding itself at the expense of civil society. The hope was that once the GOP gained power, it would act with procedural integrity, begin to try to return the government to its proper role, and deliver significant conservative victories on budgetary policy.

Instead, Republicans are poised to pass an omnibus bill that, with the exception of the defense spending, is an embarrassment and a disgrace.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

THE EDITORS — The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why Trump Is Threatening to Veto Omnibus Spending Bill" -  Leah Barkoukis: Mar 23, 2018; https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/03/23/trump-considers-vetoing-omnibus-n2463997
"3 Major Problems Conservatives Have With the Government Spending Bill" - Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / March 21, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/21/3-major-problems-conservatives-have-with-the-government-spending-bill
"Omnibus Spending Bill Amounts to a Bundle of Broken Promises" - Ted Budd / @RepTedBudd / March 22, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/22/omnibus-bill-bundle-broken-promises
"House OKs Spending Bill to Fund Government, but 90 Republicans Vote No" - Thomas Phippen / March 22, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/22/house-oks-spending-bill-but-nearly-100-republicans-vote-no

#2249 (3/22) "The Real Reason We Have Mass Shootings"

"THE REAL REASON WE HAVE MASS SHOOTINGS" - Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / March 21, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/21/not-always-like-this/ [AS I SEE IT: It's easier for people to focus on inanimate objects such as guns - that most of us do not own - rather than the decline in moral values in our country - for which all of us are reluctant to own up to. P.S. - One critical thing this article fails to mention is that legalized abortion in America has had the effect of  cheapening the value of human life. Nothing has furthered the decline of our culture than seeing the unborn as a mere inconvenience to be disposed of. -  Stan]

Students are evacuated from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, after a shooter opened fire and killed 17 people on Feb. 14. (Photo: Mike Stocker/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

     One of the unavoidable tragedies of youth is the temptation to think that what is seen today has always been. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in our responses to the recent Parkland, Florida, massacre. Part of the responses to those murders are calls to raise the age to purchase a gun and to have more thorough background checks—in a word, to make gun purchases more difficult. That’s a vision that sees easy gun availability as the problem; thus, the solution is to reduce that availability.

The vision that sees “easy” availability as the problem ignores the fact of U.S. history that guns were far more available yesteryear. With truly easy gun availability, there was nowhere near the gun mayhem and murder that we see today. I’m tempted to ask those who believe that guns are today’s problem whether they think that guns were nicer yesteryear.

What about the calls for bans on the AR-15 so-called assault rifle? It turns out that, according to 2016 FBI statistics, rifles accounted for 368 of the 17,250 homicides in the U.S. that year. That means restrictions on the purchase of rifles would do little or nothing for the homicide rate.
Leaders of the gun control movement know this. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership.

Gun ownership is not our problem. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforced moral values.

Let’s examine elements of this decline.
     If any of our great-grandparents or even grandparents who passed away before 1960 were to return, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior all too common today. They wouldn’t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing and assaulting teachers. They wouldn’t believe that some school districts, such as Philadelphia’s, employ more than 400 school police officers.
     During my primary and secondary schooling, from 1942 to 1954, the only time one saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn’t believe that we’re now debating whether teachers should be armed.
     There are other forms of behavior that would have been deemed grossly immoral yesteryear. There are companies such as National Debt Relief, CuraDebt, and LendingTree, which advertise that they will help you to avoid paying all the money you owe. So after you and a seller agree to terms of a sale, if you fail to live up to your half of the bargain, there are companies that will assist you in ripping off the seller.
    There are companies that counsel senior citizens on how to shelter their assets from nursing home care costs. For example, a surviving spouse may own a completely paid-for home that’s worth $500,000. The costs of nursing home care might run $50,000 a year. By selling her house, she could pay the nursing home costs, but her children wouldn’t inherit the house. There are firms that come in to shelter her assets so that she can bequeath her home to her heirs and leave taxpayers to foot the nursing home bill. In my book, that’s immoral, but it is so common that most of us give it no thought.

There is one moral failing that is devastating to the future of our nation. That failing, which has wide acceptance by the American people, is the idea that Congress has the authority to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another American. That is nothing less than legalized theft and accounts for roughly three-quarters of federal spending.
    For the Christians among us, we should consider that when God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” he probably didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless you get a majority vote in the Congress.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University.

#2248 (3/21) "The Oscars, Worldview, and '“The Shape of Water- Beautifully Crafted Trash"

"THE OSCARS, WORLDVIEW, AND 'THE SHAPE OF WATER' - BEAUTIFULLY CRAFTED TRASH" - by: Eric Metaxas & Anne Morse, Breakpoint.org, 
March 14, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/03/breakpoint-the-oscars-worldview-and-the-shape-of-water/ [AS I SEE IT: It's sad that an industry that once demonstrated it's potential to produce uplifting as well as entertaining films has sunk to the level of honoring a movie that displaces what is essentially bestiality. Those of us who still purchase movie tickets should use our entertainment dollars in a selective ways as a way to speak out to "Hollywood" about what we are willing and not willing to support. And even more of us should refuse to watch awards shows that seek to honor films that degrade rather than uplift. Just maybe "Hollywood" might finally get that  message. P.S. - Additionally, let us pray that those who do seek to produce films that inspire us will get the support they need to do so. P.S.S. - To the list of great films, I would add one of  my all time favorites, "Amazing Grace" which tells the tremendous story of William Wilberforce - awesome movie! - Stan]

And the winner is…..yet another film that most of us won’t want to see. Learn why more Americans are ignoring Oscar-winning movies.

Did you watch the Academy Awards? Even if you didn’t, you may have heard that a film titled “The Shape of Water,” a romantic fantasy set during the Cold War, won the Best Picture award.
“The Shape of Water” features an amphibious manlike-creature which has been captured in the Amazon. It’s taken to a government research lab, and a janitor named Elisa falls in love with the creature and helps it escape to her apartment, where they engage in sex.

Of course they do. You see, the Oscars—and the movies the film community chooses to honor—remind us that every film has a worldview message, for good or ill.

I have not seen the film and probably won’t, but Ted Baehr’s MovieGuide, a Christian film review site, points out that while “The Shape of Water” is “masterfully executed and beautifully designed,” it’s also “spiritually and morally empty,” filled with extreme violence, foul language, torture, graphic sexual activity, and Bible-quoting Christian villains.

Sadly, much of this is par for the course these days. But MovieGuide did not simply add up the number of obscenities and scenes of violence and sex; It also identified the film’s underlying worldview: “The Shape of Water,” it says, has a strong Romantic view—that is, it celebrates the philosophy of Romanticism, which teaches that “sexual impulses and the sinful desires of the heart should be lived out” enthusiastically, not “suppressed or rebuked.”

This is, of course, the exact opposite of what the Christian worldview teaches.

IndieWire film writer Anne Thompson notes, “The Best Picture Oscar usually comes down to how the Academy wants to see itself, and the message it wants to send.” Evidently, the message it wants to send is a depraved one. Maybe that’s why, according to the research, far fewer Americans go see R-rated films than they do films rated G or PG, and why fewer and fewer Americans—tired of the preening, vulgarity, and political agendas—bother to watch the Academy Awards.

But if you love films as much as I do, I have a suggestion to make: Instead of going out to see beautifully crafted trash, gather up a handful of great films on DVD and watch them instead.
    Among my own favorite are two directed by the immortal Frank Capra. The first one, “You Can’t Take It With You” teaches that life is not about piling up money, but doing what we really love and being good to our families and neighbors.
    The second Capra film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is a powerful depiction of an ordinary man who discovers how corrupt the political system is, and the price of fighting it. Released in 1939, it’s now considered one of the most important films ever made.
    Another classic is “Chariots of Fire,” about Olympic runner Eric Liddell. It’s the story of a man who is willing to sacrifice a great worldly honor in order to remain faithful to God. [This film won Best Picture for that year!]
    I also recommend “The Apostle,” starring Robert Duvall, about a deeply flawed preacher who loses his family and his church, and who begins all over again in the Bayou. It’s not for kids, but what a powerful film.
    Another favorite of mine is “Signs,” a science fiction film about a priest who loses, and then regains, his faith in God’s goodness after the world is attacked by aliens.

     You and I live in a world in which depictions of evil are beautifully designed, rehearsed, and filmed by talented directors and attractive actors. These films deeply influence our culture—which is why we need to teach our kids how to identify the worldview of every film they watch—and not be taken in by the false messages many of them promote, including movies intended for children. And then help them seek out films that inspire them to live lives of heroic virtue—and which point to the reality of God and His love for us.


[italics and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - Eric has suggested some great alternatives to the latest Oscar winning offerings. Why not watch one with family and friends at your next movie night? And we’ve also got a list of Chuck Colson’s all-time favorite films linked in the Resources section. Check it out.
Chuck Colson's Reading and Movie List- BreakPoint.org - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/CustomModule.asp?pageid=50

#2247 (3/20) "President Trump’s Decision to Defund International Planned Parenthood Has Curtailed the Global Abortion Agenda"

"PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO DEFUND INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS CURTAILED THE GLOBAL ABORTION AGENDA" - John Stonestreet,  Mar. 6, 2018; http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/06/president-trumps-decision-to-defund-international-planned-parenthood-has-curtailed-the-global-abortion-agenda 

Many rituals are associated with Inauguration Day in the United States: the Oath of Office, inaugural balls, and Washington-area residents whose party lost the election listing their homes on Airbnb, just to name a few. And then there’s a lesser-known ritual that’s just as established but even more important: the argument over the Mexico City Policy.

First instituted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City Policy derives its name from the venue of that year’s U.N. conference on “Population and Development.” The policy states that, as a condition of receiving federal funds, non-governmental organizations agree they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

Every time the White House changes party hands, the Mexico City Policy also changes. Like clockwork. So when Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they rescind the Mexico City Policy. When Republicans like George Bush and Donald Trump come to town, they restore the policy in some form.

Each time the policy is restored, abortion advocates start wringing their hands, warning that the U. S. is putting women’s lives at risk. They cite figures about deaths from “preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.” And recently, they’ve claimed that the latest iteration of the policy is forcing organizations to choose between treating HIV/AIDS and providing “life-saving reproductive health services.”

It’s not clear, of course, how in the world a policy specifically directed at abortion prevents anyone from addressing real health issues. And they conveniently omit the fact that the policy specifically exempts referrals in cases of “rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the woman.”

As Elisha Dunn-Georgiou of Population Action International, recently acknowledged, “the policy does not reduce U.S. funding for health or family planning.” But it does take money from what she calls “the most competent providers of ‘sexual and reproductive health and rights’”—that is, pro-abortion advocacy groups like hers or Planned Parenthood.

So what’s really behind the dire warnings that accompany the reinstatement of the policy is funding. Groups that equate “women’s health” with “abortion rights” attack the Mexico City policy as a “health threat,” even if the only real threat is to their own bottom line.

But there’s also another reason for the hand-wringing over the Mexico City policy, one that even critics have been forced to admit: it’s a policy that works! The policy has forced non-governmental organizations to decide whether their priority is going to be abortion advocacy or women’s health. In the process, local people are questioning why so many foreigners and government officials consistently present abortion as a solution to all of their problems, when the U.S. government does not support it?
     Well, here’s why.  First, abortion really isn’t a solution for women’s health. The all-too-many deaths from pregnancy-and childbirth-related causes in developing nations have little to do with legalizing abortion, a point critics of the policy seem intent on obscuring.
     Second, because Christian institutions provide one-third of the medical care in Africa, and they want to promote health, physical and spiritual, not a “culture of death.” That’s why they support the Mexico City Policy.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t be a bit surprised that groups like Planned Parenthood hate it. It denies their funding, and directly challenges their deep, historic, and ideological commitment to abortion on demand.

Which is why denying them funding overseas is a positive development. Now if we could only find a way to deny that funding here at home.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]