Monday, June 8, 2015

# 1252 (6/8) as "4 Liberal Myths About Ronald Reagan Debunked"

"4 LIBERAL MYTHS ABOUT RONALD REAGAN DEBUNKED" - Lee Edwards/ June 07, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/07/4-liberal-myths-about-ronald-reagan-debunked/ [AS I SEE IT: It's been about 20 years since the death of President Reagan and yet already the lies about his achievements continue to be presented. I believe he was the greatest President in my lifetime and that we may never have one like him. No, he was not perfect. No one is. But for the critical time in history that he served our country, no one stands out as a driving force for good in America and around the world. He reflected strength, integrity, and a genuineness that is very rare in a public servant. Just looking at the picture below is such a reminder of how by his personality alone he seemed to lift the nation during a time of crisis. Because of that, I never hesitate at any opportunity to share an article about him. I hope that you will be encouraged by what you read. - Stan]


President Ronald Reagan (Photo: Pamela Price/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Presidential historian H. W. Brands’ new biography of Ronald Reagan and his conclusion that modern American politics is best seen as “The Age of Reagan” has aroused liberals to circulate once again the hoariest myths about the man and his presidency, including the malicious charge that Reagan was deliberately indifferent to the lot of African-Americans and other minorities.

Liberal Myth No. 1: Reagan’s dangerously belligerent foreign policy had little to do with the disintegration of Soviet Communism. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader most responsible for bringing the Cold War to a non-nuclear conclusion.

Reality: In the 1970s, as presidential scholar Kiron Skinner has written, Reagan formulated four key ideas about U.S.–Soviet relations and the Cold War. One, discussion of Soviet expansionism around the world had to precede any talk about arms control, not the reverse. Two, America was an “exceptional” nation obligated to match deeds with words in the promotion of freedom around the world. Three, because the Soviet Union was an “abnormal” nation with no popular base of support, it was prepared to foment global crises to maintain its control. Four, the Soviet Union’s inefficient economy and inferior technology “could not survive competition” with America. Once elected president, Reagan began carrying out a multifaceted victory strategy based on these ideas.

Reagan ordered an across-the-board buildup of the defense establishment, including land-based weapons, new ships, and new medium-range missiles. He launched a psychological offensive, declaring that the Soviets’ “evil empire” was headed for “the ash heap of history.” He made SDI (the Strategic Defensive Initiative) the cornerstone of the Reagan Doctrine and would not surrender it, even at the Reykjavik summit. He strongly supported anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia.

He carried his crusade for freedom into the disintegrating Soviet empire. Standing before Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987, he directly challenged the Kremlin, saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” A little more than two years later, the wall came down and Communism in Eastern and Central Europe collapsed. Lech Walesa, Nobel laureate and founder of the Polish trade union Solidarity that confronted the Communist regime, said of President Reagan, “We in Poland … owe him our liberty.”

Democracy triumphed in the Cold War, Reagan wrote in his autobiography, because it was a battle of ideas—“between one system that gave preeminence to the state and another that gave preeminence to the individual and freedom.” The Cold War ended in triumph for the idea of freedom because of Ronald Reagan, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who as late as 1988 quoted the Communist Manifesto when asked his position on private property.

Liberal Myth No. 2: The ’80s were a decade of greed that benefited only the wealthy and overlooked the middle class.

Reality: Reagan inherited a dangerously weakened economy. High tax rates had severely limited jobs and investment and brought in less than expected government revenue. President Reagan reversed the process by cutting personal tax rates and government regulations, stabilizing the economy and encouraging entrepreneurs.

Following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, unemployment in the succeeding years fell an estimated 45 percent. During the ’80s, the consumer price index rose only 17 percent, private domestic investment grew 77 percent, and economic growth averaged 4.6 percent annually. The real income of every stratum of Americans increased, and total tax collections rose from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1990 (in constant dollars).

At the same time, Reagan deregulated oil prices, making energy cheaper, and launched U.S.-Canadian free trade, setting the stage for NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). Perhaps most important of all, he created IRAs (individual retirement accounts) and 401(k) programs, giving birth to what has been called “the investor class.” New industries arose in computing, software, communications, and the Internet that streamlined and transformed the American economy.

Liberal Myth No. 3: The federal government continued to grow and expand under Reagan, who callously tripled the national debt.

Reality: During the Reagan years, overall domestic spending did increase, as the president battled with a Democratic House of Representatives led by a fiercely partisan Speaker Tip O’Neill. Spending on education, social services, medicine, and food almost doubled. However, federal outlays on regional development, commerce, and housing credit decreased by about 22 percent. And the size of the federal civilian workforce declined by about 5 percent, because of conservative managers such as Donald Devine, described by The Washington Post as “Reagan’s terrible swift sword of the civil service.” The annual federal deficit as a share of GDP fell significantly from 6.3 percent in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about 1 percent of GDP” by 1993.

The near tripling of the national debt was mostly due to Reagan’s defense spending. In President Carter’s last budget, America spent just under $160 billion on national defense. In 1988, the Reagan administration spent $304 billion, including more than twice as much on military hardware. During his years in office, Reagan expended a total of $1.72 trillion on national defense, an unprecedented amount that he stoutly defended.

Challenged in a cabinet meeting that he “couldn’t spend all of this money on the military” and that it would look bad to boost spending on guns while cutting the butter, Reagan replied: “Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”

The essential question was, “What price peace?” Was it worth $1.72 trillion to build up America’s defenses so that Reagan could end the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield?
Most Americans would not hesitate to emphatically answer, “Yes!”

If we examine the economic report cards of postwar presidents from Truman through Reagan, according to Harvard economist Robert Barro, Reagan easily finishes first. Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and growth in gross national product, Reagan ranks first. He engineered the largest reduction in the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) in history—50 percent. The 1980s, says economist Richard B. McKenzie, were, up to then, “the most prosperous decade in American history.”

Liberal Myth No. 4: Reagan was a cynical, calculating politician who used “states’ rights” to win the 1980 election and paid little attention to African-Americans as president.

Reality: The African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has calculated that black unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. The income of black-owned businesses rose almost one-third between 1982 and 1987. The black middle class grew from 3.6 million to 4.8 million during the Reagan years, while the cash income of black households (adjusted for inflation) rose by 12 percent. By contrast, the median income of black households fell by 2.2 percent during the Obama years from 2010 to 2013.

Throughout the ’70s, Reagan exhorted fellow Republicans to address the party’s failure to attract black voters. At the 1977 Conservative Political Action Conference, he said, “We [Republicans] believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs.” Speaking to the Urban League in August 1980, after having won the GOP’s presidential nomination, Reagan said, “I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans . . . into every phase of the programs I will propose.”

While marking Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday in 1983, President Reagan drew an arresting parallel between the first Republican president and the man Americans were honoring that day. “Abraham Lincoln freed the black man,” he noted. “In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. … Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence.”

Who better than Ronald Reagan to have the last word about which is the myth and which is the reality about his commitment to civil rights?

(Originally published in the National Review)  [bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards is the author or editor of 20 books, including biographies of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Edwin Meese III as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation and the movement as a whole.

Saturday, June 6, 2015

# 1250 (6/6) "Pregnant at 17, Jess Could Have Had an Abortion But ...

"PREGNANT AT 17, JESS COULD HAVE HAD AN ABORTION BUT Made an Amazing Pro-Life Decision" - by SARAH ZAGORSKI,  MAY 26, 2015   |  http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/26/pregnant-at-17-jess-could-have-had-an-abortion-but-made-an-amazing-pro-life-decision/ 

[AS I SEE IT: The teen in this story was fortunate that her Dad referred her to a pastor who gave her wise input. This article is also a reminder that pregnant teens face tremendous pressure at school and need to have Christian teens esp. who will step forward to befriend her and help her follow-through on the right decision - giving life to her unborn child. I strongly believe that our churches need to do a better job of developing such compassion in their teens and equipping them to know how to share the truth about the person-hood of the unborn and encouraging pregnant teens to choose adoption. Churches need to see their young people as being on the front lines where loving actions can make a difference in the choices pregnant teens make - if only they allow the love of God to move them and they are equipped to speak truth. - Stan]

jessurban
    [I'm not sure, but my guess is the girl in the center of the picture is Zoe, and the two women behind are Jess (her biological Mom) and the other her adoptive Mom.]

     Jess Urban was a rebellious 17-year-old when she became pregnant by her boyfriend of only two months, and like many pregnant teens she was afraid to tell her parents. However, she told her dad and decided to seek counseling from a local pastor.

She said, “My pastor changed my life after that meeting. I knew what happened could not be undone and I needed to take responsibility for my actions, and take responsibility for myself and this growing child inside my belly. It felt like a weight was lifted—an epiphany, really.”

Thankfully, her dad didn’t encourage her to have an abortion; instead, he said she should consider adoption since he didn’t believe she was ready to raise a child. Her pastor also urged her to visit a local pregnancy center called Options Pregnancy Center, located in Fairmont, Minnesota. At the center, Jess was told about open adoptions, which allow birthparents and adoptive parents to meet each other, share information, and visit together as the child grows up.

Ultimately, this is what Jess decided to do even though she had lots of fears about the process. But before the adoption took place, she had many hurdles to overcome, such as facing criticism for being pregnant while in high school. She shared more about that experience with Pregnancy Help News. She said, “The first day of senior year, I was the talk of the school. News like this spreads like wildfire. All I remember are the snickers and badmouthing: ‘She’s pregnant?! What a slut’ ‘Oh my God – who’s the Dad?’ ‘Wow, she’s pretty stupid for getting knocked up.’ High school can be such a vicious place to begin with, let alone when you’re pregnant.”

Additionally, Jess’ boyfriend was giving her grief by suing for legal custody of the child because he didn’t want to place her for adoption. Eventually though, he did consent and they went through with their adoption plan. Their daughter, Zoe, was born with significant hearing loss because of an infection Jess contracted when she was pregnant. Unbelievably, after Zoe’s adoptive parents discovered her disability they returned her and she was placed in foster care.

Then Jess handpicked a second set of adoptive parents for her daughter who understood disability because they were deaf themselves and already had three sons. Now Zoe is 11-years-old and her adoptive family believes her disability is more of a blessing than anything else. In fact, her adopted mother, Brandi Rarus, wrote a book about their journey called Finding Zoe: A Deaf Woman’s Journey of Identity, Love and Adoption. Remarkably, Zoe is very close with her biological mother and even stood in her wedding as a junior bridesmaid.

As LifeNews previously reported, although teen abortion rates are at all time low, adoption is not as common as it once was because of social stigmas and misconceptions. There are many people that believe a child who is adopted cannot be as loved or as healthy as a biological child and that adoption can be a damaging option for a family.

     But according to the U.S. Department of Health and Services, 85% of children who are adopted are in excellent or very good health, the same as the general population. And 81% of adoptive parents described their relationships with their children as very warm and close.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Friday, June 5, 2015

# 1249 (6/5) "Bowing to the Big Lie of Bruce Jenner"

"BOWING TO THE BIG LIE OF BRUCE JENNER" - Brent Bozell | Jun 05, 2015;
http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2015/06/05/bowing-to-the-big-lie-of-bruce-jenner-n2008409/page/full [AS I SEE IT: Overwhelmed as I have been with the barrage of news stories about Bruce Jenner choosing to become a woman, it has reminded that we live in  a culture that celebrates calling evil good and good evil. A person who expresses publicly anything else is pressured to apologize to stating the obvious. I can only feel sadness for this MAN (and others like him) who is in such confusion that he has turned from GOD's wonderful plan for his life, and in effect turned from God. BRUCE JENNER NEEDS OUR PRAYERS! And so do the countless young people who as a part of growing up are either bullied or just are led to ask if they are really a boy or a girl (but who almost all overcome such confusion over time). Sadly, as they watch MR. Jenner only get affirmation for what he's done, it will only add to their own confusion. How much more can we break the heart of God? - Stan (P.S. - Please note the short article after this first one that expresses the regret of someone who also did a Bruce Jenner type of transition. Insightful for Christians!)]
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
The story of Bruce Jenner declaring against human reality that he's a woman was already a tired old story, exhausted last month in a one-hour prime-time ABC "news" special. But that's not how the grand pooh-bahs of our news and entertainment media see it. They can't get enough. Deconstruction is a tonic. And so the Kardashian-Jenner Inc. rollout continues, a perfect combination of shameless TV hucksterism and a leftist revolt against the old-fashioned notion of natural humanity. How yesterday.

We know -- everyone knows -- Vanity Fair rolled out a new cover of Bruce Jenner gaudily underdressed as a woman with the headline "Call Me Caitlyn." Not a cover story, mind you, just a cover image. The media went bananas. ABC, CBS and NBC offered more than 48 minutes of coverage in two days, as if Jenner was now the Queen of America.

ISIS. The 2016 campaign. Hillary's scandals. The crashing economy. Who the [---] cares about that?

It would be shocking if anywhere in that 48-plus minutes of enthusiasm there was one discouraging word of dissent. Fawning is mandatory, dissent forbidden. Babbling morning hosts cooed over the Internet "buzz" (which they were fueling). Somehow they forgot to mention that a hefty portion of it expressed sadness, disgust and outrage at all the pandering.

So the Big Lie is a big hit. The emperor wears women's clothes, and everyone must bow and praise the beautiful rollout. GLAAD will destroy anyone who fails to be re-educated.

This publicity barrage is selling a new series on the cable channel E! titled "I Am Cait." You can now see all the gears and pulleys of this publicity machine. Bruce stuck with male pronouns in the first stage with ABC, so that they could make a drama out of the actual rollout of "Caitlyn Jenner." Every sensitive liberal soul is carefully taught that Bruce is a male until he decides that he's not. He changes his name for a new TV show. At that precise moment, everyone joins the pronoun revolution. Isn't this whole linguistic regime tremendously convenient for a publicist?

The dominant theme of the pandering is how "brave" Bruce Jenner is, from President Obama's tweets to every other liberal in America. ESPN will be giving him a "Courage Award" at their upcoming ESPY Awards show. Soldiers who lose limbs -- or their lives -- in combat are pikers compared to Bruce Jenner. No ESPYs for them. It's reserved for the man who goes out to dinner at Spago in a gown.

The mission of every media outlet, from ESPN to "Access Hollywood," is to make everyone genuflect to the new regime. On MSNBC, gay radio host Michelangelo Signorile praised all this as leadership: "I think the media, I think the way they've handled it, we're leading this discussion. Yes, people can have their moments when they're trying to get used to it, but somebody has got to lead the discussion. And this has been great."

Dissenters were slammed for objecting to the Big Lie that "Caitlyn Jenner" fathered children and won the gold medal in the men's decathlon in the 1976 Olympics. The "anti-defamation" police at GLAAD insist to the media: "Try to write transgender people's stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns." That's rich.

The confused people are the ones who think they're the smartest people in America, but can't figure out a man is a man and a woman is a woman. The deconstruction of Western Civilization skips merrily forward.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Brent Bozell is founder and President of the Media Research Center and runs the largest media watchdog organization in America. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Transgendered Regret: Sex Change 'Fixed Nothing'"By Rebekkah Kemp, June 05, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/June/Transgendered-Regret-Sex-Change-Fixed-Nothing/
     Former Olympian Bruce Jenner has been hailed a hero by some in the LGBT community for his recent sex-change surgery and name change to Caitlyn. But one man who has changed sexes twice says that the transgender movement has left a trail of misery in its wake.
     Author and speaker Walt Heyer has experienced sex-change regret first hand. "The surgery fixed nothing - it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems," Heyer wrote in a recent article on Public Discourse. "If more people were aware of the dark and troubled history of sex-reassignment surgery, perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to push people toward it," he said.
     Is sex-change surgery the answer to gender dysphoria? How should the Church respond to transgenders? "We need to be mindful that the Church is a hospital for broken people. And as such, we need to be the people who administer assistance and guidance to those people who are suffering," Heyer said. "We don't want to leave them where they are. We want them to be healed and find the source of Christ in their life so they can be restored the way I have been," he added.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

#1248 (6/4) "The Gospel of Climate Change"

"THE GOSPEL OF CLIMATE CHANGE" - By: Leah Hickman| Breakpoint.org: May 27, 2015;
http://www.breakpoint.org/tp-home/blog-archives/blog-archives/entry/4/27438?spMailingID=11497783&spUserID=MTMyMjM2ODE5OQS2&spJobID=541876883&spReportId=NTQxODc2ODgzS0

     As reported in a New York Times article from May 20, President Obama used his commencement address to the graduates of the Coast Guard Academy to emphasize the importance of combating climate change. During the address, Obama asserted that "climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country." As a result, he argued, "We need to act, and we need to act now." During his speech, "Mr. Obama repeated arguments he cites often to promote his climate change effort, including a litany of grim facts and figures about rising temperatures, swelling seas and vanishing sea ice, dismissing skeptics of the phenomenon or those who refuse to act on it as guilty of 'negligence' and 'dereliction of duty.'"

     Meanwhile, as Sen. John McCain pointed out, Isis fighters have taken control of two more Syrian and Iraqi cities, leading to the deaths of innocent people, yet the administration still has no strategy for combating Islamic State militants -- but "the president of the United States is saying that the biggest problem we have is climate change."

     In light of the numerous worldwide threats to human life and well-being that have popped up in recent history, there is something very unsettling about our culture's extreme emphasis on the dangers of climate change. Proponents of the climate change movement, however, are able to excuse the apparent overemphasis on climate change by linking it to issues throughout the world. The New York Times article explains:
     "In a report issued on Wednesday, the White House said climate change would act as "an accelerant of instability around the world," prompting water scarcity and food shortages that could escalate tensions and lead to overpopulation. It also said that rising temperatures would "change the nature of U.S. military missions," increasing the demand for resources in the Arctic and coastal regions that would be affected by higher sea levels, and result in humanitarian crises that are larger and more frequent."
     The end of climate change, many seem to argue, will secure hope for all people and will mean our salvation. Proponents of the movement preach the end of climate change as if it were synonymous with the end of evil. They preach it as if they are promoting some new gospel.

     Realistically, however, this focus on climate change just speaks to the incredibly warped perspective of our culture. Without a biblical understanding of mankind's purpose on earth and an acceptance of the mandate in Genesis 1 to "be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28), the culture has a hard time understanding what humanity's relationship to the earth should be like. Without the understanding of mankind's inherent worth as a creature created in the image of God, our culture also forgets that humans have a unique role and a unique relationship with the Creator that sets them apart from the rest of creation. 

     Consequently, our priorities become severely mixed up. While we scramble around with our fruitless attempts to prevent global warming, the unborn within our own nation are robbed of their natural right to life and innocent people overseas meet with death at the hands of Isis militants. We cannot sensibly blame climate change for these issues. Climate change is not the evil at the heart of all problems. In fact, it is primarily a distraction from the real problem, and that problem is much deeper and much more complex than anything having to do with global warming. 

     That problem is the problem of the human heart. It is the sinful nature of humanity, not the possibility of "swelling seas," that poses the true "immediate threat" to our country. As long as this nation continues to misdiagnose the problem, we will see no improvement. 

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

#1247 (6/3) "...THE SCANDAL OF CHRISTIANITY

"It's What We Say, Not How We Say It - THE SCANDAL OF CHRISTIANITY" -By: John Stonestreet|Published: May 14, 2015;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-archive/entry/13/27360 [AS I SEE IT: I cringe - not when I see Christians speaking out God's truth in a hostile culture - but when I hear of a Christian leader who claims that to be relevant we need to accept the direction our culture is driving our nation. As this article points out, we need to be sensitive and loving in presenting God's truth but we should still not do anything less. We need to expect and accept a hostile response from those who stand opposed to God's truth and not capitulate to their views in the naive hope that we will eventually "win them over." We will only be "relevant" as we lovingly stand for the truth, always.  - Stan]

Making our arguments winsomely is important. But it won’t carry the day. That’s because, in the end, Christianity will remain a scandal in the world’s eyes.

A Gallup poll found that 45 percent of respondents had either a “mostly unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” view of “religious fundamentalists.” In another poll, 30 percent of Americans said they wouldn’t want to have a fundamentalist as a neighbor.

You may have noticed the lack of the adjective “recent.” That’s because these polls date from 1993 and 1989 respectively. So it’s not new that faithful Christians are in the cultural crosshairs. That’s what happens when we insist on following Christian teaching on controversial subjects. You’d think we’d be used to this by now, yet our attitude toward the larger culture continues to be dominated by a kind of willful naiveté.

Our naiveté is underscored by a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, which found that 61 percent of Americans would be either “enthusiastic about” or “comfortable with” a gay or lesbian person running for president. Now that shouldn’t come as news. What should come as news is that fewer Americans, only 52 percent, felt the same way about an Evangelical running for president. Nearly half “expressed some degree of hesitancy about the idea.”

The automatic question is “why?” and the automatic answer, at least in Christian and conservative circles, is “media bias.” And there’s some truth to this answer. As Rod Dreher put it, “Evangelicals have gotten a raw deal from our media.” But, as Dreher adds, “that’s beside the point now.” That’s because, “there’s nothing Evangelicals can do to turn [popular opinion] around, short of totally abandoning Christian orthodoxy on same-sex marriage.” It doesn’t matter how reasonable, calm, or winsome we might be. Just ask Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation. He’s all three of these things and that does not keep people from calling him a “bigot.”

Now, don’t get me wrong: We should be reasonable, calm, and winsome when talking to, well, anyone and everyone, especially those who disagree with us: not as a debating tactic but as part of our loving our neighbors as ourselves. Just as we would want people to be reasonable, calm, and winsome when addressing us, we should do the same for them. And in treating those who vituperate us with respect and kindness we, if nothing else, as Paul told the Romans, “heap burning coals on their heads.”

But we shouldn’t be so naïve as to think that what lies behind what sociologists David Williamson and George Yancey recently dubbed “Christianophobia” is a communication problem. The problem is what we’re saying, not just how we’re saying it.

Sure, there are Christians whom, in all Christian love, I wish would just be quiet. But when the New York Times and a major presidential candidate tell us that historic Christian teaching must yield to the new sexual orthodoxy, no amount of winsomeness can overcome that kind of antipathy.

Likewise, when people can equate boxer Manny Pacquiao’s support for pro-life and pro-marriage policy to his opponent’s history of domestic violence, reason has caught the last flight out of town.

And no amount of calm will dissuade critics, such as the Lynn, Massachusetts, school board member who compared Gordon College to the KKK and dismissed their work among the city’s poorer children out of hand.

In the end, no matter how “nice” we are, our faith in Jesus and our faithfulness to His teaching will be a scandal to the world. And we are and will be treated accordingly.

This doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on the culture, much less that we should be bitter about our treatment. On the contrary, Jesus told us to “rejoice” and “be glad” when people insult, persecute, and utter every kind of evil against us. Our joy and steadfastness in the face of this kind of opposition is how the Church proclaims “Jesus is Lord!”

No matter what our neighbors think.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - "He will be the truth that will offend them one and all / A stone that makes men stumble And a rock that makes them fall / Many will be broken so that He can make them whole / And many will be crushed and lose their own soul." (from Scandalon, by Michael Card)
RESOURCES
"Feed ‘Em to the Lions!" - iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org;http://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2015/02/02/feed-em-to-the-lions/
"The Failure of Winsomeness" - Rod Dreher | The American Conservative | May 6, 2015;
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-failure-of-winsomeness-evangelical-gay/
"Scandalon" - Michael Card | Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ_ngvEmxaQ

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

#1246 (6/2) "When Chaplains Can’t Discuss the Bible"

"WHEN CHAPLAINS CAN'T DISCUSS THE BIBLE"Jerry Newcombe | May 27, 2015; http://townhall.com/columnists/jerrynewcombe/2015/05/27/when-chaplains-cant-discuss-the-bible-n2004623 [AS I SEE IT: It sickens me that those who will often put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms have their own freedom denied them. It is no wonder that recent reports tell of the low morale in our military and of difficulty finding those willing to join our armed forces. Please join me in praying for leaders in our armed forces who will recognize this and stand up finally against those promoting such destructive policies. - Stan]

     I believe that America is kept safe by the military, which has had a spiritual shield held over it from before we were even a country---by the chaplains. But today chaplains are under enormous pressure to fully embrace political correctness.

Meet Lt. Commander Wes Modder, a chaplain in the U.S. Navy. About fifteen years ago, the Navy thought so highly of him that they used him in a video to recruit potential chaplains. He has ministered to sailors, Marines, and Navy Seals. Today, Chaplain Modder is fighting for his military career because he refused to bow the knee to political correctness.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, Vice President of Family Research Council, told me in a 2013 interview: “I talked to [chaplains] privately about the pressure that they are under. Many of them are under pressure to perform same sex marriages and most of the ones that I have talked to…when the time comes that they are told to do it…they’re going to refuse.”

Kelly Shackelford, the founder and director of Liberty Institute, fights for religious liberty in the courts and in the court of public opinion. His group fights against the anti-Christian legal organizations that try to strip away any Christian influence (including that of chaplains) from the public arena. He says such secularist groups are working “to really change our country to something it never was and I hope never will be.” He adds, “They think that society would be better if religion was sort of relegated to people’s homes or their churches or synagogue but not brought out in public. Well, that has never been the approach in this country; that wasn’t the approach of the founders, that’s not what our Constitution says and hopefully we can continue to win these cases so that it doesn’t become what this country is about and how it’s based.”

The founders of America were very clear that God was important to the American cause. Our national charter, the Declaration of Independence, said our rights come from the Creator. They appealed their cause “to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions.” It also said the founders had a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”

When George Washington, then Commander-in-Chief of the continental forces, first read the Declaration to his troops on July 9, 1776, he decreed that chaplains should be hired systematically throughout the military. In his order, he declared, “The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger.” But today, we seem to be turning our back on God.

Lately, there is pressure against military chaplains to make their prayers more “inclusive.” Translation: Don’t pray in Jesus’ name.

Kelly Shackelford told me, “These attacks that we’re seeing are not usually against the Muslim faith, they’re not usually against the Buddhist faith. They’re not against the Jewish faith. They’re attacks against Christianity in particular.”

There is also pressure lately to accept modern views of sexuality, as opposed to traditional views taught in the Bible. The widespread acceptance of those novel views has wreaked havoc on society---ultimately causing the breakdown of the family, the rise of crime, runaway venereal diseases, fatherless homes, rampant divorce, untold misery, etc.

In the military, as in society, conflicts over standards of sexual morality are bound to lead to conflict. As an example, Chaplain Wes Modder, has been relieved of his duties. Why? Because during private counseling sessions with some young sailors, he privately expressed his disagreement with pre-marital sex and homosexual practice, in accordance with the Bible and his sending denomination, the Assemblies of God. The sailors complained to Chaplain Modder’s higher ups, who summarily relieved him of his duties threatening to kick him out of the Navy and cut off his pension---after 19 years of stellar military service.

Mike Berry, Liberty Institute’s Director of Military Affairs, said, “Knowing what I know about Chaplain Modder, reading his service record, seeing the awards he’s received, the decorations he’s received, the accolades, the fitness reports, and evaluations, the letters of recommendation---and to see these allegations and accusations that…the Navy is trying to use against him, I can’t comprehend how this is happening to this American hero.”

Wes Modder was shocked when he first got the news several months ago: “I feel betrayed. I feel dishonored for my 15 years, almost 20 total of my service to my country.”

Says Shackelford, whose legal group is defending Modder in this case: “The chaplains are under a lot of pressure to bow their knee to the government instead of to the proper One that they should be bowing their knee.”

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Dr. Jerry Newcombe is a key archivist of the D. James Kennedy Legacy Library and a Christian TV producer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marine Court-Martialed for Displaying Bible Verse" - CBNNews.com, May 27, 2015;http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/May/Marine-Court-Martialed-for-Displaying-Bible-Verse/
    " A U.S. Marine has been convicted at a court-martial for displaying a Bible verse. Now her case is being appealed to the military's highest court. When Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling has was stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, she posted Isaiah 54:17, which reads, "No weapon formed against you shall prosper." Liberty Institute reports she printed out the verse and posted it in her workspace. Her supervisor complained about it, reportedly cursing at her and telling her to remove it. Sterling contended she had a First Amendment right to religious expression and did not take down the verse. She says the next day her supervisor tore down the verse and threw it in the trash. The U.S. government then criminally prosecuted Sterling...."

Monday, June 1, 2015

# 1245 (6/1) "To Defeat the Islamic State, America Must Re-Engage in the War of Ideas"

"TO DEFEAT THE ISLAMIC STATE, AMERICA MUST RE-ENGAGE IN THHE WAR OF IDEAS." - James Carafano / @JJCarafano / May 24, 2015 /http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/24/to-defeat-islamic-state-america-must-re-engage-in-the-war-of-ideas/

A girl and her family who escaped from the area controlled by the Islamic State militants in Iraq's Ramadi. (Photo: Chin Nouvelle/SIPA/Newscom)

It’s easy to adopt a ho-hum attitude about the Middle East at times. To see it as the place where, as comedian Louis C.K. recently said on “Saturday Night Live,” they’ve been having the same fights for hundreds of years, so “it’s boring now.”

The name “Middle East” is fitting for more than just geographic reasons. It’s in the “middle” of most of the stuff we care about: global finance, maritime traffic, energy supplies and migration flows.
But it’s also ground zero for the global Islamist insurgency. And as the fall of Ramadi, Iraq, shows, the Islamic State and al-Qaida are making a great deal of progress over there. That means more will be looking to join them—and spread mayhem elsewhere—including here.

Americans simply can’t afford to not care about the Middle Eastern mess. The Obama administration has hardly been inactive, but it hasn’t done nearly enough to roll up the Islamic State in Iraq. As a result, the battle for the country keeps seesawing back and forth. Eventually, the Islamic State will have a tough time holding onto its territory. It could lose its grip on large swaths of the countryside and even major cities. But that may not happen anytime soon. And even then, there will be plenty to worry about.

A great deal of attention has been paid to the terrorist group’s social networking skills and sophisticated videos. But these are symptoms rather than causes of the threat. Its social presence grows because the brand is rising in popularity, much the way Twitter followers shift their allegiance from Justin Bieber to One Direction.

And what makes the Islamic State’s social network a threat is that it is linked to human webs—people who can and want to link up with other people and do damage. The best way to damage the power of terrorists online is to deliver disruptive, crushing and humiliating blows to their human networks. When the brand declines, so does its online networkAs long as the Islamic State can continue to advertise that it’s winning against the West, it will attract foreign fighters to the region and inspire extremism and terrorist attacks elsewhere. Stop it from winning, and you minimize the attraction.

It is debatable whether the Islamic State has infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere robust enough to mount sophisticated operations. That’s cold comfort, though. Small, amateurish and loosely affiliated efforts can still kill a lot of people and do a good deal of damage.

Also, defeating the Islamic State may not be the end of the Islamic State. A defeated Islamic State may withdraw back to Syria and fall back into the fold with al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaida, which is threatening to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

If the Iraqis manage to win back their country, the U.S. is going to have to remain as a strategic partner to prevent conditions that might allow the Islamic State to come back. We’ll also have to help the Iraqis deal with the mess in Syria.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is going to have to deal with the destabilizing influence of Iran. There will be a hot debate over how well the Iran deal will, in fact, deal with Tehran’s nuclear program. On the other hand, it’s indisputable that the deal will give the regime a lot more money to meddle in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Yemen. If the U.S. isn’t there to counterbalance Iran’s destructive influence, no matter what happens to the Islamic State and al-Qaida, that part of the world is going to get a lot worse.

At the same time, there is a long to-do list outside the region. America has to be a global leader in helping take down these foreign fighter pipelines that are shuttling bad people and bad ideas from one corner of the earth to the other.

The U.S. also has to re-engage in the war of ideas. The voices combating Islamist ideology need help. The same social and human networks that spread extremism also carry the countervailing calls for religious liberty and toleration, economic freedom, equity in justice, and political liberty.

America has to start naming the enemy, and embracing its enemies. Here at home we need robust counterterrorism and domestic intelligence programs appropriate to the post-9/11 world in which we live.

Then, perhaps, those “boring fights” can move back down the list of our concerns. Until then, though, it’s simply too dangerous to ignore.

(Originally published in the Bradenton Herald) [bold and italics emphasis mine]

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research.