#1762 (11/7) "Factoring Israel into Your Voting Decision"

"FACTORING ISRAEL INTO YOUR VOTING DECISION " - Michael Brown: Nov 07, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/11/07/factoring-israel-into-your-voting-decision-n2242204 [AS I SEE IT: I have no doubt that tensions with Israel will continue to be strained with a Clinton administration just as it has been with President Obama. As this article makes clear, Biblically, it's critical that America stands firm with Israel. But simply from the standpoint of Israel being America's most faithful ally AND the only democratic voice in the Middle East that stands against Islamic aggressions, we need leadership in the White House that will do more to stand with Israel. - Stan]

    God certainly has his ways of getting our attention, and He got my attention this past Saturday night when I was speaking at a pre-election conference at a church in Lakeland, Florida. The pastor and his wife have three small children, the middle one being a boy named Israel, just three years old.
     His grandmother, the pastor’s mother-in-law, was babysitting for him and his sister at the pastor’s house, when suddenly, to her shock, the boy was nowhere to be found. She tried calling her son-in-law and daughter, who were at the church service, finally reaching them on the fourth try. “Israel is missing!” she exclaimed, as they jumped in their car to head home, calling 911 on the way.
    At this time, the night service was now over,  and I was waiting for the pastor to drive me back to the hotel, but he had disappeared and was nowhere to be found. That’s when a church worker came up to me and said, “I’ll be driving you back,” explaining to me that the pastor had received a message that “Israel is missing.” Thankfully, by then, he had been found, asleep in his own bed. Apparently, he had wandered somewhere else in the house, falling asleep in a closet or in the garage, somehow evading his frantically searching grandmother, only to find his way back to his bed and to a quiet night’s sleep.
     But those words “Israel is missing” kept ringing in my ears, and when I woke up Sunday morning, reflecting on whether I should speak on Israel and the elections, there was an Amber Alert on my phone for a missing child in the area (obviously, not for little Israel, but the coincidence of the moment was not to be missed). This certainly got my attention.

     But given the importance of America’s relationship with Israel, I didn’t need any kind of special sign to focus on the subject, since I honestly believe that God judges nations, in part, based on how they treat Israel. Now, before you write me off as some kind of hyper-spiritual, Zionist nut case, let me explain what I do and do not mean. (For those of you who don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, then I’m already a hyper-spiritual nut case in your eyes. No problem!)

First, standing with Israel does not mean standing against the Palestinians or sanctioning everything Israel does.

Second, if a country stands with Israel, that does not give that country some kind of magic pass because of which God will overlook all their transgressions.

Third, we stand with Israel despite Israel’s shortcomings, not because Israel is perfect (far from it).

That being said, I believe the ancient principle spoken first to Abraham, then to his grandson Jacob, then to the nation of Israel as a whole, still applies today, namely, that God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel (see Genesis 12:3; 27:29; Numbers 24:9).

How has this worked out historically?
     In Jeremiah 30:11, the Lord said to Israel, “For I am with you to save you, declares the LORD; I will make a full end of all the nations among whom I scattered you, but of you I will not make a full end. I will discipline you in just measure, and I will by no means leave you unpunished.”
     Looking back, we can see that Assyria and Babylon, the mighty empires that exiled Israel and Judah in the 8th and 6th centuries, ceased to exist in the centuries that followed, while the nation of Germany suffered horrific defeat in war and was divided for decades after the Holocaust. Are these just coincidences? I think not.
     Derek Prince, an Oxford-trained, British Bible teacher (1915-2003), noted many years ago that, “Britain emerged victorious from two World Wars, retaining intact an empire that was perhaps the most extensive in human history. But in 1947–8, as the mandatory power over Palestine, Britain opposed and attempted to thwart the rebirth of Israel as a sovereign nation with her own state.” (At that time, Prince was living in Jerusalem, and so he spoke “as an eyewitness of what actually took place.”) In his words, “From that very moment in history, Britain’s empire underwent a process of decline and disintegration so rapid and total that it cannot be accounted for merely by the relevant political, military or economic factors. Today, less than a generation later, Britain—like Spain—is a struggling, second-rate power.” 

     It’s for you to decide whether you believe any of this, but in my humble opinion, even though America helps Israel every year with billions of dollars of military aid, I believe America needs Israel more than Israel needs America. And since the Republican platform is much stronger on Israel than is the Democratic platform (this seems to reflect the views of Trump-Pence vs. Clinton-Kaine as well), that’s another strong reason I will vote for Trump-Pence on Tuesday, despite Mr. Trump’s many obvious and serious flaws.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#1761 (11/6) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Why Christians Must Vote in This Election (Staying Home Is Not an Option)"

"WHY CHRISTIANS MUST VOTE IN THIS ELECTIOIN (STAYING HOME IS NOT AN OPTION)" - Robert Jeffress | Nov 01, 2016;
 http://townhall.com/columnists/robertjeffress/2016/11/01/why-christians-must-vote-in-this-election-staying-home-is-not-an-option-n2240251 [AS I SEE IT: If there is one thing most Americans - and maybe all Evangelical Christians - can agree on is that we don't personally like either candidate. BUT, voters need to realize that WHERE EACH STANDS ON THE ISSUES are very different and thus the direction of this country each potentially presents are also vastly different. When people don't vote, they are saying they don't really care what direction the country takes not only in the next  4 years but also what generations of Americans may have to endure if the wrong policies are implemented for this country. Also, voting for a third party candidate (or writing in the name of another candidate) is essentially the same as not voting since no one but either major candidate is going to win - period. To vote thus may appease one's conscience that he/she voted "right" but it only makes it more likely the wrong candidate will win. If YOU are one of the undecided, I plead with you to take the time to study where the candidates are on the issues and vote for the one that presents the future you want America to have. In past recent elections, it's said as many as 20-30 million evangelicals DID NOT  vote. It's probable their silent voices helped elect the President we have endured the past years. So no matter what your feelings about the 2 major party candidates, study where they stand on the issues, and, for the sake of our nation, VOTE! - Stan]

I hear the lament often from conservative Christians as I travel the country: “How can I vote for either of these candidates with a clear conscience?” Increasingly, many Christians are choosing the stay-at-home option (or throw away their vote with a write-in candidate option) as a way to maintain their integrity.

Frankly, I understand the appeal of such a choice. Not voting allows Christians to avoid both having to make a difficult choice or defending an unpopular choice to disapproving friends or family members. And let's face it, playing the “conscience card” allows someone to feel holier than other Christians who sully themselves by getting involved in the political process. 

However, I believe there are three reasons why not voting is not an option for truly conscientious Christians:

1. Voting is a God-given privilege and responsibility. Many times I’m challenged by Christians who wonder why I am involved in politics. “After all, didn’t the apostle Paul instruct believers to simply ‘pray for kings and all those who are in authority’?” But remember, in biblical times citizens of Israel or Rome did not have the option of doing anything about governmental leaders except to pray for them. You didn’t get to vote for the king or for the emperor!

But as John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and co-author of The Federalist Papers said, “[God] has given to our people the choice of their rulers . . . of our Christian nation.”

Every time we go into the voting booth we are choosing the moral and spiritual direction of our nation. That is a privilege and responsibility that should not be abdicated.

2. Voting Is A Primary Way For Christians To Stop Evil. Imagine you saw an elderly woman being assaulted by a mugger and you had the ability to stop the assault, but walked away. Although you might not be legally culpable for the attack, you would be morally culpable.

Every year more the one million of the most defenseless in our society—the unborn—are being murdered through abortion. Since the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) more than 50 million children have been killed. Donald Trump has pledged to nominate Supreme Court justices who will either overturn Roe v. Wade or at least curtail late-time abortions including the horrific practice of partial birth abortion.
In the last presidential debate, Trump articulated the clearest defense of the pro-life position of any Republican presidential nominee in history including Romney, McCain, either of the Bushes, or Ronald Reagan.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has pledged to nominate justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade. Additionally, she refuses to place any restrictions on abortion, regardless of reason for or the timing of the abortion.

Abortion is not the only issue that should be of concern to conscientious Christians. Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has launched an all-out attack on religious liberty in America by suing the Little Sisters of the Poor Catholic charity, forcing Christians schools to allow men in women’s locker rooms under Title IX requirements for transgender rights, and being a willing accomplice in bankrupting Christians who try to exercise their faith through their businesses.

This war against religious liberty will only escalate under Hillary Clinton who is resolved to nominate Supreme Court justices, as well as dozens of federal judges with lifetime appointments, who embrace an expansionist view of the Constitution and will force the secular progressive agenda down the throats of Americans. Remember, the next president will serve only 4 or 8 years, but these justices and judges will impact our nation for decades.

3. Voting is about endorsing policies, not personalities.Ronald Reagan was a known womanizer during his days in Hollywood and would be the first divorced president in history. Yet, in 1980 evangelicals overwhelming supported Reagan over a Baptist Sunday School teacher named Jimmy Carter who was faithfully married to one woman. By supporting Reagan, evangelicals were not supporting womanizing or divorce, but they were endorsing Reagan’s policies.

I’ve been amazed at the number of conservative Christians who have developed a case of selective amnesia when it comes to their support of previous candidates with imperfect pasts, whether it be Reagan, McCain, Bush, Gingrich, or a host of others.

There are no perfect politicians—just as there are no perfect pastors or voters. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. But the fallibility of both candidates in this election—as in every election—is no excuse for not voting.

I will be the first to admit that the sanctity of life and the preservation of religious freedom are not even among the top ten concerns of most voters. But those issues should be of primary importance to those who call themselves Christians.

That is why I’m voting on November 8. My conscience won’t allow me to do otherwise.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Dr. Robert Jeffress is pastor of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas and an adjunct professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Jeffress’ daily radio program is heard on 764 stations nationwide, and he is the author of twenty books.

#1760 (11/5) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Hillary Clinton and the Extreme Abortion Culture"

"HILLARY CLINTON AND THE EXTREME ABORTIONIST CULTURE" - David Limbaugh| Nov 04, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2016/11/04/hillary-clinton-and-the-extreme-abortionist-culture-n2241263 [AS I SEE IT: Personally, I don't think there is much more to say that what this writer says in the first sentence. - Stan]

Hillary with the head of Planned Parenthood, a group she fully supports (not surprising since she talks  often about how she admires it's founder Margaret Sanger), and the group who fully supports her candidacy. 

On the abortion issue alone, I believe that Christians should vote for Donald Trump as the only possible candidate to defeat the march of the death culture Hillary Clinton would lead if she were to be elected.

Pro-abortion feminists are growing ever more militant in their make-believe world that sees men and women as bitter rivals, if not outright enemies. They seem to view everything through a gender prism; people have to support Clinton not because she has a better agenda but because she's a woman.

Don't get me wrong; they also think she has a better agenda, but they are constantly thinking and speaking in terms of gender identification and loyalty. And all too often, they demonize men in the process -- whom they perceive as a threat to women's rights.

This adversarial culture the left fosters is not limited to gender. It includes race, economic "status" and every other imaginable category that can aid in their politics of division, on which their political power depends. WikiLeaks' revelations have confirmed that such polarization is integral to the modern Democratic Party's grand strategy for eventual one-party dominance.

If Clinton wins this election -- despite the tsunami of corruption and scandal that surrounds her, in which she is knee-deep -- she will believe she is politically bulletproof, and for good reason. She and husband Bill would never have behaved as cavalierly and recklessly as they have if they didn't think they possess a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. I shudder to think what their mindset would be if Hillary were to be victorious.

She would pursue the abortion-on-demand agenda with abandon. She would appoint radical judges at all levels who share her worldview and her determination that the courts continue to rewrite laws that thwart the will of the people. She'd accelerate Barack Obama's war on religious liberty through the courts, lawless executive orders and other administrative avenues.

Some will say I'm exaggerating here -- that the left just wants to protect beleaguered women, who should have sole sovereignty over their "reproductive" decisions. Leftists aren't pro-abortion; they have benign motives, focused exclusively on the mother's choice and health.

Well, that may be true of some rank-and-file Democratic voters. But most leftist politicians, thought leaders and power brokers are pro-abortion extremists and coldly calculating in promoting their goals. They know that protecting the mother's health is rarely involved in abortion decisions. They know that pro-life advocates, many of whom are women, don't believe in suppressing women. But they also know that by characterizing pro-lifers as women-hating, totalitarian ogres, they will increase the odds that they'll keep moving their pro-abortion football down the field toward the end zone marked "death."

I wrote in 2004: "People I've debated on the (abortion) issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is 'potential life' or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life. But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I've anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that 'the fetus is not a human life.' Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances -- such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain -- it's practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument."

Fast-forward 12 years and see how inevitable it actually was. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing on Salon, asks, "So what if abortion ends life?" She writes: "Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word 'life.' Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants (to) be on the side of ... not-life? ... The 'life' conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice."

I don't like quoting just some of her statements and don't want to mislead as to her intent, so I strongly urge you to read her entire piece, where you can judge for yourselves these comments in context. But I must share one more passage. She writes: "Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."

I could comment on those assertions for hours but have run out of space. What do you mean "lest" you wind up looking as if you love death panels? That's exactly what you look like, as cold and heartless as your words on the page.


Leftist advocates will applaud such amoral muscle flexing, but I appeal to less extreme liberals, Democrats and never-Trumpers to understand the depth of the depravity of this mindset and understand that if you help elect Clinton, you are, among many other frightening things, empowering this evil worldview. Should I refrain from calling it "evil" for fear of offense or being labeled intolerant or an extremist? I think not. You can take that up with the babies whose lives are hanging in the balance. 

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tax-Funded Planned Parenthood Spending $38 Million to Push Hillary and Pro-Abortion Democrats" - Leah Jessen, NOV 4, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/04/tax-funded-planned-parenthood-spending-38-million-to-push-hillary-and-pro-abortion-democrats/
"Clinton Foundation Partnered With Planned Parenthood To Expand Abortion Around the World" -  - Cheryl Sullenger, Nov. 2, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/02/clinton-foundation-partnered-with-planned-parenthood-to-expand-abortion-around-the-world/ 
"Ex-Pro-Abortion Feminist Says Hillary Clinton’s Radical Pro-Abortion Views Betray Women"- Micaiah Bilger, NOV 4, 2016; http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/04/ex-pro-abortion-feminist-says-hillary-clintons-radical-pro-abortion-views-betray-women/

#1759 (11/4) "Quit Blaming the Rich. It’s the Government Ripping Us Off"

"QUIT BLAMING THE RICH. IT'S THE GOVERNEMENT RIPPING US OFF"- Walter E. Williams / November 02, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/02/the-rich-and-us/? [AS I SEE IT: What's described in this article might be described as "pay for play." Have you heard that regarding the scandal embroiling any particular candidate running for office? Her initials are H.C. Any questions? - Stan]

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, having a net worth of $81.8 billion, and Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, having a net worth of $70.4 billion, are the nation’s two richest men. They are at the top of the Forbes 400 list of America’s super-rich individuals, people who have net worths of billions of dollars.

Many see the rich as a danger. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote: “It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.” His colleague Paul Krugman wrote: “On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.”

It’s sentiments like these that have led me to wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. For without having the rich around to be whipping boys and distract our attention, we might be able to concentrate on what’s best for the 99.9 percent of the rest of us.

Let’s look at the power of the rich. With all the money that Gates, Bezos, and other super-rich people have, what can they force you or me to do?
     Can they condemn our houses to create space so that another individual can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run—and doomed—Obamacare program? Can they force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Can they force us to buy our sugar from a high-cost domestic producer rather than from a low-cost Caribbean producer? The answer to all of these questions is a big fat no.

You say, “Williams, I don’t understand.” Let me be more explicit.
     Bill Gates cannot order you to enroll your child in another school in order to promote racial diversity. He has no power to condemn your house to make way for a casino parking lot.
     Unless our elected public officials grant them the power to rip us off, rich people have little power to force us to do anything. A lowly municipal clerk earning $50,000 a year has far more life-and-death power over us. It is that type of person to whom we must turn for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant, and do myriad other activities.

It’s government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce us and rip us off. They have the power to make our lives miserable if we disobey. This coercive power goes a long way toward explaining legalized political corruption.

Take just one of thousands of examples. The Fanjuls are among the biggest sugar cane growers, and they co-own the world’s largest refining company, American Sugar Refining, which markets its product under the brand names Domino, C&H, Redpath, Tate & Lyle, and Florida Crystals. During the 2014 election cycle, Florida Crystals contributed more than $860,000 to candidates and political spending groups. It spent more than $1 million lobbying Congress, the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Commerce, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Here’s my question to you: Do you think it forked over all that money to help our elected representatives uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution? Nonsense.
     The Fanjuls and other sugar producers want Congress to use tariffs to keep foreign-produced sugar out of our country so they can reap the financial benefits from being able to charge Americans two to three times the world price of sugar. 

      So here’s the ultimate question: If some rich people can line the pockets of politicians to do their bidding at the expense of the rest of us, who’s to blame? I think it’s we, the people, who are to blame for not using our votes to run such politicians out of town—and that’s most of them. But that might be deceitful of us, for we also ask politicians to enable us to live at the expense of others.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

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

#1758 (11/3) "3 Ways To ...Talk Taxes

FYI  - Today is my Spiritual Birthday! I prayed to receive Christ 43 years ago with Leonard Mahoe after a Campus Crusade for Christ outreach.

"3 WAYS TO ... TALK TAXES" - Beverly Hallberg / October 11, 2016 /  http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/11/three-ways-to-use-the-presidential-debate-to-talk-taxes/?

The presidential debate brought up an issue faced by every American: taxes. 

(Photo: Peter Muller/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

With the leak of Donald Trump’s tax records by The New York Times, and following round two of the presidential debates in which both candidates spoke about their tax plans, taxes are in the news to stay.

But like its code, taxes are complicated. There’s the corporate tax rate, the sales tax, personal income tax, and loopholes to apply. The likelihood anyone does their own taxes without the help of an online program or accountant is low. Ain’t nobody got time for that, even if they could figure it out.

Starting today, and over the next few months, tax reform will be a hot topic to discuss with neighbors, family, friends, and co-workers. So where do you begin, and what angle provides the best argument for tax reform? Here’s how to break it down.

1) Common Ground
     It’s a pretty safe bet that most people agree: 1) we should all pay our fair share, but 2) the current tax system is difficult to understand. Too many loopholes exist that authorize some to legally circumvent a hefty payment or pay nothing at all. It’s not fair, but reform can make it fair; transparency works wonders.

Even though there is an argument to be made for private vs. public management, taxes fund services we use every day—think infrastructure, public transportation, etc. If we have to pay our fair share to ensure these services continue, we’d appreciate if our neighbor pays his fair share too. Removing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code achieves this end.

So, start with “we’re in this together.”

2) Examples
     If we agree that all should pay their fair share, then the simplification of the tax code will better guarantee that happens. It will also reduce costs for families and small businesses.

The Daily Signal reported in August [http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/04/these-tax-code-changes-could-save-average-american-families-around-4000-a-year/] on how much money people have to pay just to file their taxes. The code is so complicated that a ridiculous amount of time and money is spent before the check is written to the state and/or federal governments. As the article notes: “Tax complexity is a charge on a charge.” What?

If that seems absurd, it’s because it is. Think of the possibilities if the time and money spent just to file taxes were eliminated with a simpler tax code—job creation! And other worthy endeavors. A bad tax system—unfair, complicated—decreases opportunity.

The Daily Signal also points out that the United States suffers from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We’re ranked 154 of 178 in reference to “fiscal freedom.”

Let’s talk Burger King. Not many in the media were reporting on the corporate tax rate at the time—and even fewer Americans had been paying attention—but in 2014, Burger King made an announcement that it was planning to move its headquarters to Canada because the corporate tax rate was lower. I repeat, Burger King left the U.S. for Canada in order to pay lower taxes. (A little-known fact: The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world—higher than France!)

That caught the attention of the media and nearly every good, burger-loving American. All of a sudden, the corporate tax rate was in the news because everyone knows Burger King and nothing is more American than a burger!

3) Words
     In addition to using words like “fair” and “simple” to describe the tax reform you want, be mindful of the phrases you choose to frame your argument.

For example, the “estate tax.” This is the technical name for the onerous federal tax levied against the property or business of someone who has just died, before the inheritance is passed on to the heirs. However, the term “estate tax” sounds regal and out of touch. If you want to illicit an emotional response (and better describe the tax), use “death tax.”

And if you ever get hit with the 99 percent argument? I often say: “The rich can afford to pay more, but you know who can’t? Everyone else. The more money the rich have to give to Uncle Sam, the more they have to downsize, which often leads to fewer jobs for you and me. It’s a losing situation.”

Taxes are tricky, both to pay and talk about. But hopefully the common ground, examples, and the right words/phrases outlined are a great starting point to make an argument for tax reform. Keep it simple, and we’ll cross our fingers that the tax code will soon follow suit.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Beverly Hallberg is a contributor to The Daily Signal, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and president of District Media Group

#1757 (11/2) "The Election Is Coming - SO’S THE DAY AFTER"

"The Election Is Coming - SO’S THE DAY AFTER" - John Stonestreet, Breakpoint.org, Nov. 1, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/30052 

Chuck Colson often said, “Salvation won’t arrive on Air Force One.” Ok, we all agree on that. So, how now shall we live?

Well, perhaps you’ve heard: there’s an election next week. And I’ve never seen the nation or the Church more divided over politics. For the most part, evangelicals are angrily—and I do mean angrily—split over whether to vote for one of the two most disliked candidates in history, to vote third party, or whether to even vote at all. The anxiety, the anger, and the vitriol are over the top. So with the election just a few days away, let’s take a breath and do a reality check.

First and foremost, the ultimate reality is this: Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. As I said recently on Focus on the Family with Jim Daly, this is not just a spiritual truth, it is the singular truth of the universe. The entire story of human history centers on Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Yes, we have two horrible candidates for the presidency. Yes, Supreme Court seats are at stake. Yes, the Church is coming under enormous and fiendish pressure from all sides. But none of that, not an iota, changes the fact that Christ is risen. To be a Christian in this world means to place our ultimate hope in that incontrovertible fact, not in the electoral process, in our nation, or in anything else.

And second, even so, you need to vote. And here’s why. God has placed you and me in this country, in our particular state, in our particular community at this particular time. And as my fellow Focus guest Carrie Gordon Earll said on that same broadcast, we—unlike many of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world—have the opportunity to vote, and to use that vote to do good.

I can’t and won’t tell you how to vote for President. But not showing up at the ballot box is not an option for a believer. Besides the presidential race, there are Senate and House seats up for grabs. Don’t forget state representatives. And of course ballot initiatives in your area. In Colorado, where I live, we have nine different initiatives on the ballot. Citizens in my state will be voting on whether to allow physicians to help their patients kill themselves—a law that would threaten the old, the disabled, and the mentally depressed. To stay at home and allow the march of death to continue unabated in our state and across the country is not an option. As James reminded us in his letter, “To him who knows to do good and does it not, it is sin” (James 4:17).

Third, as you consider your presidential, state, and local vote, remember this: Many issues are important. A few, however, are essential.

Take the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. When Chuck and many of us signed the Manhattan Declaration [see link below], we said we would gladly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we would never render to Caesar what belongs to God. And human life belongs to God. Our dignity, our rights, come from Him, not from the state. We need to defend life with our vote.

And then there’s marriage. Undermining and redefining it weakens the key institution that—along with religious and civic organizations—promotes a healthy society.

And then there’s religious freedom and freedom of conscience. At this moment of American history, forces hostile to Christianity are trying to keep religious faith out of the public square. This radical shift is not only an attack on religion, it’s an attack on the Constitution itself.

And finally, remember, the election will be over soon. On November 9 we’ll still have lots of work to do, more important work—not only to heal the rifts within the body of Christ, but also to get back to the business of testifying to Christ and His resurrection—in the culture, on the job, at school, in each and every aspect of life. It may be harder to do after this election. But so what? Elections come and go every two and four years. But the task of being salt and light in this darkening culture never goes away.

This election demonstrates, again, that politics is downstream from culture. This election fiasco was decades in the making. The only way to see a healthier polis is to get to work upstream, rebuilding the institutions of civil society.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As John has pointed out, we are called to do good. So go do good in the voting booth this Election Day. Then get involved in the work of rebuilding a healthy culture starting at your community and local levels.
Manhattan Declaration - http://manhattandeclaration.org/#0

United States Constitution - http://constitutionus.com/

"The Importance of Voting" - John Stonestreet | Focus on the Family; http://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/the-importance-of-voting

How Now Shall We Live?- Chuck Colson, Nancy Pearcey | Tyndale House Publishers | September 1999; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_BKHNP

#1756 (11/1) "Media Made Right Call to Ignore Climate Change in Debates"

"MEDIA MADE RIGHT CALL TO IGNORE CLIMATE CHANGE IN DEBATES" - Nicolas Loris / October 26, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/10/26/media-made-right-call-to-ignore-climate-change-in-debates/?

Climate change ranked dead last in a recent survey of 16 issues Americans care about. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography /Newscom)

To the dismay of some pundits, celebrities, and environmental activists, three presidential debates produced zero questions on global warming. Simply wishing an issue to be a priority won’t make it one. Americans and people around the world are apathetic to taking action on climate change. And for good reason. Chicken Littles have incorrectly predicted doomsday scenarios and, even in the event of climate catastrophe, costly policies offer a nonsolution.

Both domestic and international polls demonstrate how little individuals want to take action on global warming and even more important, how little they’re willing to pay for it.

Take, for instance, the United Nations’ “My World” survey that asked individuals to choose six issues that “are most important for you and your family.” Nearly 10 million people have responded, and out of a list of 16 issues, “action taken on climate change” ranked dead last. Education, health care, and better job opportunities came in as the top three.

Even climate polling data spun as encouraging isn’t all that impressive. A March Gallup poll reports that concerns over climate change are at an eight-year high. But that headline alone doesn’t provide the full context. While the percent of Americans who worry about global warming a great or fair deal is up to 41 percent (the  highest since Gallup asked the question in 1998), 57 percent still do not perceive global warming as a serious threat.

Another allegedly encouraging poll comes from a recent survey conducted by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and the AP-NORC Center. The New York Times heralded the results as “Americans Appear Willing to Pay for a Carbon Tax Policy.” But just how much are Americans willing to pay? A measly buck a month. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were willing to pay an additional dollar per month on their electricity bill to combat climate change. Forty-two percent weren’t even willing to pay that much. For proponents of an aggressive carbon tax, that’s not very encouraging.

At $20 a month, the public is more than 2-to-1 against paying to combat climate change, which is more telling that there’s no real appetite for this. Importantly, the poll fails to include how much abated warming Americans would receive from paying an additional $1, $20, or $50 per month. In every scenario, the answer is next to nothing.

Even if the U.S. cut 100 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions (which would cost Americans a lot more than $50 per month), it would not make any meaningful impact on projected warming.
Using the same estimated climate impact from a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling (which is arguably higher than reality), the world would only be 0.137 degrees Celsius cooler by 2100 if the U.S. shut down its entire economy. The entire industrialized world could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 100 percent and the result would be a whopping 0.278 degrees Celsius cooler by the turn of the century. Let’s see how our grandchildren feel about that sacrifice.

Polling data alone certainly isn’t a reason to ignore an issue. But the reality that we’re not headed toward catastrophic warming and  costly policies that ripple through the economy won’t mitigate global temperatures most certainly are.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.