#1912 [4/7] "US Cruise Missiles Strike Air Base in Syria"

"US CRUISE MISSILES STRIKE AIR BASE IN SYRIA" - Fred Lucas / April 06, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/06/us-cruise-missiles-strike-air-base-in-syria/ [NOTE: Please don't miss Sunday's blog post as it will give some great insights about the possible spiritual state of President Trump, something that Christians have wondered about since he first ran for office and esp. as he has become President. It's based on the comments he made re: the air strikes he just ordered. Some might say it's just wishful thinking, but I say what if...]

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley holds up photos of victims of the chemical weapons attack in Syria during her remarks Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council. (Photo: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas/Sipa/Newscom)

The United States fired dozens of cruise missiles at an airfield in Syria that military officials said was the source of the poison gas attack by the Assad regime that killed at least 80 civilians less than 48 hours earlier.

 President Donald Trump said he ordered the airstrikes Thursday night in response to the chemical weapons attack Syrian dictator Bashar Assad carried out on his own people. “Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children,” Trump said of the victims of what was believed to be sarin gas, speaking briefly around 10 p.m. from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “No child of God should ever suffer such horror,” the president said.

The Associated Press reported that 59 Tomahawk missiles hit the Shayrat air base in central Syria at 8:45 p.m. EDT, or 3:45 a.m. Friday in Syria.The missiles were fired from two destroyers, the USS Ross and USS Porter, in the Mediterranean, Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reported.

A missile is fired at the base in Syria from the USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea.
(Photo: U.S. Navy/Sipa USA/Newscom)

In his remarks, Trump said: "Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield from which the chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council."

Trump went on to ask for a coalition to assist the United States in opposing Assad and terrorism “of all kinds.” “Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types,” Trump said.

During the presidential campaign, Trump positioned himself as a noninterventionist and years before entering the race had warned his predecessor, President Barack Obama, not to intervene in Syria. But during a Rose Garden press conference Wednesday, Trump said his attitude toward Assad and Syria had changed after he saw the carnage, especially the horrible deaths of children and infants, in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. The U.S. strike at the Shayrat airfield hit planes, fuel, spare parts, and the runway, The New York Times reported, citing military officials.

Trump did not warn Russian President Vladimir Putin before the strike, Fox’s White House correspondent, John Roberts, reported from Mar-a-Lago. The U.S. did notify the Russians through normal “deconfliction” channels, officials said. Putin has supported and supplied the Assad regime in Syria’s 6-year-old civil war. Hundreds of U.S. troops are on the ground in Syria as part of the fight against the Islamic State terrorist group, also known as ISIS, based in Raqqa in the north and central part of the country.

The strike on the airfield occurred just after Trump said goodnight to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who is visiting Mar-a-Lago for talks with Trump this weekend, Roberts reported. Trump did not state whether American policy now supports regime change in Syria.

Last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the fate of Assad is up to the Syrian people.
However, earlier Thursday, Tillerson said: “There would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”

Trump also did not answer a reporter’s question about his legal authority to launch the strike.
Obama, despite a 2012 warning that Assad’s use of chemical weapons would be a “red line,” opted to seek congressional approval—which he never got—to launch an airstrike after a chemical weapon attack that killed hundreds of civilians near Damascus in 2013. Afterward, Assad said he would give up his chemical weapons and Russia was supposed to help ensure that happened....

James Carafano, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation, said limited attacks are not the solution in Syria. “Culpability here goes beyond Assad to the Russian and Iran regimes, which support this despicable behavior,”“ "A limited punitive strike certainly sends a powerful message that Assad’s behavior is beyond the pale of what is acceptable,” Carafano told The Daily Signal. “The U.S. is fighting with allies in the region to defeat ISIS to protect innocents from these kinds of atrocities. There is no reason why Assad should expect the international community to stand by while he does worse.”

Carafano, a Heritage vice president who oversees the think tank’s Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, said “the solution must be long term and part of a political process that holds the regime accountable.” He added: "Culpability here goes beyond Assad to the Russian and Iran regimes, which support this despicable behavior. Particularly abhorrent are the actions from Russia, which frustrated action in the U.N. Security Council and spread disinformation to cover up the [Assad] regime’s culpability."

Later Thursday night, Tillerson said the strikes do not indicate a change in the Trump administration’s policy on refugees from Syria. “I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today,” the secretary of state said, adding:"There has been no change in that status. I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors … cross the line on violating commitments they’ve made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways."

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal.Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trump Launches Attack on Syria, Seeking God's Wisdom to Stop the 'Horror'" - CBNNews.com, 04-06-2017; http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/april/trump-launches-attack-on-syria-seeking-gods-wisdom-to-stop-the-horror?cpid=EU_CBNNEWS

#1911 [4/6] "... Ignore the outrage over the vice president's dining habits."

"I worked for Mike Pence. Being a woman never held me back. IGNORE THE OUTRAGE OVER THE VICE PRESIDENT'S DINING HABITS." -  By Mary Vought, April 1, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/01/i-worked-for-mike-pence-being-a-woman-never-held-me-back/

 Vice President Pence is a model of work-life balance — something we should all appreciate. (Joe Harpring/AP)

Washington will swallow your soul if you let it. It’s a place where many moral compasses go to die. So maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Vice President of the United States is ridiculed when it’s reported that he’s spent his time in office choosing to live his life differently from the D.C. status quo.

Since a Washington Post profile of Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, appeared last week, critics have obsessed over a single line, which reported that, as of 2002, the vice president doesn’t dine alone with women other than his wife. At the Atlantic, the New Yorker and other venues, writers have argued that Pence’s preference amounts to a discriminatory policy against women employees, leading to them being left out of important meetings that could boost their careers.

But it’s not true. And I would know: I’m a woman, and I worked for Pence while he served in Congress.

Pence’s personal decision to not dine alone with female staffers was never a hindrance to my ability to do my job well, and never kept me from reaping the rewards of my work. In fact, I excelled at my job because of the work environment created from the top down, and my personal determination to succeed. I engaged in senior staff meetings and strategy sessions side-by-side with the congressman and my colleagues, and I never felt sidelined because of my gender. My proposals and suggestions were always valued as equal with those of my male counterparts.

As time went on, I was able to prove that I could handle increased responsibilities, and so more responsibilities were provided to me. My gender never factored into how my work was evaluated, or whether my responsibilities were expanded. In fact, the congressman would sometimes send me to GOP leadership communication meetings to represent his voice — and more often than not, I was the only woman in the room. My work product determined my success — not private dinners with the congressman. When looking back on my time in the office of the man who is now vice president, I don’t consider it to be a period of missed opportunities.

The fact of the matter is, it’s not as though then-Congressman Pence was out having private dinners with male staffers and I was excluded. He wasn’t having private dinners much at all. He had children at home, so as often as possible, after voting and his daily duties, he’d race home to share a meal with the people that mattered most to him most: his family. Frankly, he modeled for male and female staffers alike that it was possible to serve in a public role with excellence while being wholly dedicated to his family.

This is by no means a partisan issue. Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or couldn’t care less, if you choose to prioritize your marriage and esteem your family while faithfully carrying out public service, you should be praised. If the only woman you want to dine alone with is your spouse, you should be commended. With his choice about how to divide up his time, Pence made a strong statement about work-life balance, the importance of family time, and respect in the workplace: values we can all get behind.


There’s enough mudslinging to go around in Washington, so let’s hold ourselves to high standards and not critique someone based on his or her principles. We should demand integrity from our leaders and not criticize them when they choose to uphold it.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Mary Vought is the President of Vought Strategies, LLC. She previously served as Press Secretary to the House Republican Conference under then-Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN).

#1910 (4/5) "The Silent Suffering of Gay Men - An Unspoken Epidemic"

"THE SILENT SUFFERING OF GAY MEN - AN UNSPOKEN EPIDEMIC" - by: John Stonestreet & Shane Morris, Mar. 31, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/03/breakpoint-the-silent-suffering-of-gay-men/ [AS I SEE IT: When the source is one not supporting the homosexual agenda, the mainstream media casually dismisses what is reported. BUT the difference here is that the source is clearly one supporting the homosexual agenda and yet dares to tell the truth. Of course, this writer is not getting wide-spread coverage in the secular media. The truth that "gay" men are not really "gay" but would only destroy the myth so many have chosen to believe. To quote this articles opening words, "ideas have consequences." It's also why I have chosen never to use the term "gay" to describe those caught up in homosexuality, and wish more Christians and conservatives would as well. [P.S. - Is this epidemic also true in the lesbian community?; P.S.S. - Be sure to note the references cited at the end of this article.] - Stan]

Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. False promises of love and personal fulfillment are no exception.

Over a year and-a-half after the Obergefell decision, the debate over gay “marriage” and homosexuality has largely fizzled out: partly because of the election, partly because the “T” in the LGBT acronym has been stealing all the headlines, and partly because Obergefell is now viewed by many as settled law. And that’s a shame, because so-called “progress” isn’t bringing about the rosy picture we were promised.

In what may be the most candid piece in Huffington Post history, Michael Hobbes, who identifies as gay, writes about what he calls an “epidemic of loneliness.” “For years,” he begins, “I’ve noticed the divergence between my straight friends and my gay friends. While one half of my social circle has disappeared into relationships, kids and suburbs, the other has struggled through isolation and anxiety, hard drugs and risky (behavior).”

Through story after story and mountains of statistics, Hobbes then documents a consistent and chilling trend among those who share his lifestyle. “Gay men everywhere, at every age,” he writes, are two-to-ten-times more likely than heterosexual men to commit suicide.

And that’s just the beginning. Homosexual males also suffer from higher rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, allergies, asthma, and a whole host of behavior-related infections and dysfunctions. They’re twice as likely to experience major depressive episodes, report having fewer close friends, and abuse drugs at an alarming rate.

In fact, living in so-called “gay neighborhoods” is a predictor of more frequent, risky behaviors and methamphetamine use. And, Hobbes adds, the community itself is brutal and degrading to its members. Smart-phone hookup apps drive a culture of exploitation and casual encounters that one young man he interviewed said made him feel like “a piece of meat.”

We often hear these disastrous statistics and stories attributed to homophobia, bullying, and shame. Having been treated horribly since childhood, men like this author—the oft-repeated myth goes—are forced to live a lie. They’re depressed because they’ve been oppressed and repressed.

But here’s the problem with the bullying hypothesis. In countries like the Netherlands and Sweden where same-sex “marriage” has been the law of the land for years, gay men remain three times more susceptible to mood disorders and three- to ten-times more likely to engage in “suicidal self-harm.” The situation is so bad that one respondent in a survey of HIV clinics told researchers, “It’s not a question of not knowing how to save their lives. It’s a question of them not knowing if their lives are worth saving.”

Incredibly, after this long and brutal and well-documented description of life in his community, Hobbes then concludes the cause as having minority status, which has taught them to live in fear. At no point does he consider the possibility that it’s the lifestyle itself that may be what’s destroying these men’s lives. Still, one expert quoted in the piece hints that he knows what’s going on. Christopher Stults, a researcher at New York University, admits that for many people, the marriage decision was a letdown. “We have this legal status, and yet there’s still something unfulfilled.”

Could it be that this lifestyle cuts off this community from the natural family, from children, and—according to years of statistics—from monogamous partnerships? Could it be the disparity Hobbes sees between what he wants and what he got is a result of a broken lifestyle? Could it be that this behavior naturally isolates people? Could it be that God didn’t design His image-bearers to live like this, and when we do, it actually destroys us?

Unfortunately, those questions are no longer even considered by Hobbes or by social scientists. But we as a society, and especially the Church, must consider these questions. As long as there are real people trying to fill their hearts with lies, caring about them will mean having a more open mind than the Huffington Post.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Further Reading and Information - No matter who we are, all of us, when we decide to deviate from God’s design and plan for our lives, will experience pain and brokenness.  May the Lord continue to use the ordinary, imperfect people of His body, the Church, to demonstrate His love and forgiveness to a broken and dying world.
Resources
"Together Alone: The Epidemic of Gay Loneliness" (Editor’s Note: graphic and disturbing content) - Michael Hobbes | Huffington Post | March 2, 2017; http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/
"Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals
Matt Slick | Christian Apologetics Research Ministry | September 13, 2011; https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

#1909 (4/4) "Block and Blue: Dems Vow Filibuster"

"BLOCK AND BLUE: DEMS VOW FILIBUSTER" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, April 03, 2017; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA17D02&f=WU17D01

There’s never been a successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history -- but that won’t stop the Democrats from trying! The hard-headed minority is insisting that it’ll pull off what no party in America ever has: blocking Neil Gorsuch from an up-or-down vote. Never mind that Democrats blasted the GOP for threatening the same thing under President Obama. As far as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is concerned, some political views were only meant to last as long as the party’s power does.

The Democrats’ outrage over the filibuster seems to be one of them. As recently as 2013, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) shamed the GOP for considering the very thing she’s advocating today! “We need to call out these filibusters for what they are -- naked attempts to nullify the results of the last presidential election… If Republicans continue to filibuster these highly qualified nominees for no reason other than to nullify the president’s constitutional authority, then senators not only have the right to change the filibuster rules, senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules.” If you looked up the definition of hypocrisy in the dictionary, this would be it.

And here’s the kicker. These same senators -- Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray, Patrick Leahy, Ron Wyden, Jack Reed, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, and Bob Menendez -- all supported Neil Gorsuch’s 2006 nomination. Did the president’s Supreme Court pick suddenly become unqualified? Not according to the American Bar Association, who gave the 49-year-old its highest recommendation. As far as the GOP is concerned, it’s only a matter of how -- not whether -- Gorsuch will be confirmed. Earlier this afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee cleared the final hurdle before the real showdown begins, voting Gorsuch to the floor along party lines.

At least some Democrats seem to understand that keeping Gorsuch from his seat could force them to lose theirs! Blocking the president’s pick -- especially when so many Americans listed SCOTUS as a top concern in the November elections -- would put Democrats on the wrong side of voters, again. And in the states that Trump carried, that may as well be political suicide. Senators Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) seemed to grasp that, announcing their intent to vote for Gorsuch. “He has a record as a balanced, meticulous, and well-respected jurist,” Heitkamp said late last week. Unfortunately, colleagues like Feinstein don’t agree. “When President-elect Trump is willing to support reasonable politics and nominees, I’ll hear him out. But this committee has a vital role to protect the Constitution…” If that was not such a deceptive statement it would be comical. Since when have radicals like Feinstein ever cared about protecting the Constitution? Their only interest has been in finding activist judges to carry out agendas they could never pass legislatively.

Meanwhile, if there is drama on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) insists it will be short-lived. “What I can tell you is that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week,” he told reporters. Senate Republicans like Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) warned the Democrats four years ago not to go through with their plans to blow up the judicial confirmation process. But Senator Harry Reid didn’t listen and pushed the plunger down on the dynamite, shattering the 225-year-old tradition. Instead of requiring 60 votes to end debate on a nomination, liberals lowered the threshold to 51. They call it the “nuclear option” -- and rightly so, since it’s about to mushroom into something Chuck Schumer never thought possible.

What goes around comes around. And now, under a Republican president and Senate, the Left is on the wrong side of the same rules they manipulated. To pitch a fit at this point, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued, is like “an arsonist complaining about a fire.” FRC has been a vocal proponent of Gorsuch’s -- not because he agrees with us on the importance of life and religious liberty, but because he recognizes the Constitution does. “Judge Gorsuch’s testimony, and the testimony of witnesses who actually know him, creates a dilemma for anybody desperately searching for a reason to vote oppose his nomination,” Grassley wrote in a new column. “Because if you’re voting on qualifications and not politics, it’s an easy yes.” Americans, Democrat and Republican, want justices who follow the letter of the law. It’s a shame their liberal senators don’t.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

#1908 (4/3) "Putting the NC in NCAA?"

"Putting the NC in NCAA?" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 31, 2017; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20170331/putting-ncaa

It was a buzzer-beating shot, but when legislators tried to appease the NCAA, no one in North Carolina won. The "fake repeal" of HB 2 (as liberals called it), was -- as far as most people were concerned -- worse than doing nothing. Desperate to pass something before the NCAA's midnight deadline, lawmakers attempted to piece together a bill that reset the state's bathroom, locker room, and shower policies to the pre-2016 standard. To the Left's frustration, also bars anyone but the state from enacting gender-free ordinances like Charlotte's for at least three years.

In the tight circle of LGBT activists, groups seethed. "This is not a repeal of HB 2," an incensed ACLU said. "North Carolina lawmakers should be ashamed of this backroom deal that continues to play politics with the lives of LGBT North Carolinians." HRC's Chad Griffin launched attack after attack on his twitter feed, arguing that "This new law does not repeal HB 2. Instead, it institutes a statewide prohibition on equality by banning non-discrimination protections across North Carolina and fuels the flames of anti-transgender hate."

But the biggest question coming out of Thursday's fiasco isn't how liberals feel. Or even conservatives. It's about how the one group the measure was tailored to please -- the NCAA -- would respond. And even now, no one knows. In the greatest of ironies, legislators rushed to make a bad deal they aren't even sure the organization will support! At the Final Four press conference in Arizona, all eyes were on NCAA President Mark Emmert, who took as many questions on HB 142 as he did about the tournament semi-finals. Until the board meets, he told reporters, the organization has no official position on the deal. "We've tried to do a number of analyses, laying them all side by side, and it very quickly becomes very, very difficult. What distinguished North Carolina was, as you pointed out, there were four distinct problems that the board had with that bill. They've removed some of those now but now, as you point out, not all of them. And the question the board will be debating [is]: If you remove two or three of them, is that enough-- relative to other states?"

Although Emmert warned that the decision would be a "very difficult one," he insists the group is just happy "they have a bill to debate and discuss. The politics of this in North Carolina are obviously very, very difficult. But they have passed a bill now and it will be a great opportunity for our board to sit and debate and discuss it." One thing's for sure: they won't be considering it in a vacuum. HRC, SPLC, ACLU, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, Equality NC, Lambda Legal, and other extremists left little doubt where they stand. From the pages of USA Today to local outlets like the Charlotte Observer, liberals said the message from the NCAA to North Carolina should be simple: "pound sand." How seriously the association will take their advice (one would assume very seriously, since LGBT activists have had the NCAA on a string for years) remains to be seen.

Conservatives, meanwhile, were already irked by one of Emmert's closing statements, which suggested that the NCAA was never trying to meddle in North Carolina politics. "I think there's one other point that needs to be really clear. And that is the NCAA does not consider itself -- the board, myself, the staff -- does not consider itself an entity that has any business telling a state what their laws should be. State's laws and community's laws are the business of their elected leaders and the citizens of those states." How he said that with a straight face, I have no idea. What does he call an ultimatum for state leaders to repeal a law? Exchanging pleasantries? The NCAA knew exactly what it was doing when it took North Carolina's tournaments hostage.

For now, the business community may be the only ones happy with the bill, which is almost comical -- since they were the ones least affected by it! The law had already given executives the freedom to open their bathrooms and locker rooms to anyone (an option most refused). Instead, they railed against HB 2 while their own facilities went untouched. Where the debate goes from now is anyone's guess. We know that the only compromise the Left will accept is the total surrender of those who oppose their lunacy. And as willing as state leaders may be to grovel to the NCAA, voters won't be nearly as indulgent. They understand that basketball may be important, but the privady and safety of their children isn't a game.

#1907 (4/2) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "How to Reach Your Secular Neighbor - Engage, Enquire, Edify, Encourage"

"HOW TO REACH YOUR SECULAR NEIGHBOR - ENGAGE, ENQUIRE, EDIFY, ENCOURAGE" - by: Eric Metaxas & Stan Guthrie, Breakpoint.org, March 30, 2017, http://breakpoint.org/2017/03/reach-secular-neighbor/

Ever wondered why secular people aren’t interested in God? Maybe we’ve never given them a reason to be.

When it comes to sharing Jesus Christ with the growing numbers of religious “nones” in America—that is, those who answer “none” when asked to describe their religious beliefs or affiliations—there’s no silver bullet. That’s the bad news. The good news is, the Golden Rule still works pretty well.

That’s the gist of a thought-provoking and ultimately encouraging article by Khaldoun Sweis, who is Tutor of Philosophy at Oxford University and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Olive-Harvey College in Chicago. Khaldoun starts off his argument—which you’ll find in our friend Ed Stetzer’s blog, “The Exchange”—by making a shocking claim. Khaldoun says of the “nones,” “They not only think that they don’t need God, but many have never been given a single reason as to why He is relevant to their lives.”

The respected Pew Research Center reports that half of these secular neighbors say they left their childhood faith because they no longer believe it or are no longer interested in it. Khaldoun tells of a secular female who dismissed a courageous boy passing out tracts, saying, “I don’t want or need your god, thank you very much.” Ouch!

Khaldoun, who has been sharing the good news of Jesus with such people for the last 15 years, says that when they say they don’t believe in God, he will ask them to describe the god they don’t believe in. “Nine times out of ten,” he writes, “it is usually a god I do not believe in either! The caricatures and misrepresentations of the Christian God are abundant.”

But rather than getting all defensive about it and lecturing them about their mistaken worldview, Khaldoun will engage them. In fact, he commends such engagement to all of us—in the four major arenas of secular thought in the world: government, education, media, and culture. “Use the pluralism diversity thesis to gain a seat at their table,” he says. “After all, according to them, Christianity is just another paradigm, and since they don’t want to be intolerant of any viewpoint, you should be allowed to speak too.”

Then Khaldoun says we are to enquire—that is, listen to them and ask thoughtful questions. Often the problem with their worldview will become readily apparent, even to them. A student walked into his office and stated brashly, “I do not believe in anything that is not physical. I only believe what science tells me is true.” Khaldoun asked him if his idea was physical. A great conversation then ensued.

Finally, Khaldoun says, we can edify. “George,” he says, “whose father died over ten years ago, never forgot that I was one of his only friends who came to that funeral. If you know people long enough, they will inevitably go through difficult times. This is the opportunity to show them the love of Christ. …. It is demanding, if not impossible, for people to forget that! When the heart is tender, it is more open than any other time!”

That, my friends, is evangelism according to the Golden Rule. We can make Christ relevant—and real—in the lives of others not by arguing them into the kingdom but by showing them what a Christ-follower looks like—someone who engages with the community, who thoughtfully inquires about sensitive, ultimate issues, and who edifies—one might even say encourages—by our loving presence.

Throughout this process—and most times evangelism is nothing if not a process—we’ll need to be ready to give an answer for the hope we have in Jesus. Part of that readiness involves having resources at our fingertips that clearly and non-threateningly describe the Christian faith and worldview to our secular neighbors. We’ve already recommended Greg Koukl’s great little volume, “The Story of Reality.” There are many others, too, so come to BreakPoint.org. And get ready to make God relevant to your neighbors, secular and otherwise.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Further Reading and Information - As the apostle Peter said, we’re to always “be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” 1 Peter 3:15
Why You Most Certainly Will Fail to Reach Your Secular Friends- Khaldoun Sweis | Christianity Today | March 16, 2017;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2017/march/why-you-most-certainly-will-fail-to-reach-your-secular-frie.html
The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between- Greg Koukl | Zondervan Publishers | January 2017; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780310525042
The Sacrament of Evangelism- Stan Guthrie, Jerry Root, Lyle Dorsett | Moody Publishers | April 2011; http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9780802422880
Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind- Michael Lipka | Pew Research Center | August 24, 2016;http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/
The Seven Signs of Jesus: God’s Proof for the Open-Minded- Stan Guthrie | CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform | March 2017;http://stanguthrie.com/books/the-seven-signs-of-jesus/

#1906 (4/1) PRO-LIFE SAT: "David and the Abortion Goliath"

"DAVID AND THE ABORTION GOLIATH" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 30, 2017, http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20170330/david-abortion

Mike Pence is used to voting in Congress, but who knew he'd cast so many important ones as vice president? Donald Trump's second-in-command has a second title in the Senate: tie-breaker. And that job could not have been more significant than today when the former Indiana governor handed Americans a major victory on Planned Parenthood -- the first piece of pro-life legislation to land on President Trump's desk.

As some of you might remember, President Obama gave his friends plenty of parting gifts on his way out of Washington. Using his power at Health and Human Services, he issued a rule that did two things: it locked down federal grants for Cecile Richards's group through the Title X "family planning" program and blocked states from defunding Planned Parenthood. Obviously, the point was to strong-arm states into giving taxpayer dollars to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.

That's not only a violation of states' rights but of taxpayers' trust. Just yesterday, Americans watched in horror as a doctor for Planned Parenthood joked about working out so that she'd be strong enough to dismember unborn babies. It was the 13th undercover video released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) -- each more horrifying than the last. As part of the footage, the doctor also implied that the group often saw babies born alive and it would depend on "who [was] in the room" as to whether they'd follow the law on giving the child medical help. [http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2017/03/planned-parenthood-abortionist-pay-attention-to-whos-in-the-room-to-deal-with-infants-born-alive/]

For Planned Parenthood, who so routinely violates the law that the U.S. House referred them for criminal prosecution, it's just one in a mile-high pile of reasons that states are racing to defund the group. Robbing them of the authority to do so, as Obama tried, is the worst form of political terrorism. "State legislatures around the country have spoken out about their preference for prioritizing more comprehensive primary and preventative care providers for the receipt of Title X funding," Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) wrote in a joint op-ed for the Washington Examiner, "and their voice should be respected by bureaucrats in the federal government."

Fortunately, the majority of senators (minus RINOs Lisa Murkowski, Alaska and Susan Collins, Maine) agreed. Although the bill to disapprove of the measure was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Mike Pence pushed the bill passed the procedural hurdle and paved the way for President Trump to dismantle another ridiculous rule of the Obama era. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued with Democrats who said the vote would "harm women."
 "[The rule] substituted Washington's judgment for the needs of real people," McConnell reminded them. "This regulation is an unnecessary restriction on states that know their residents a lot better than the federal government."

As for CMP, whose work is motivating more states to cut ties with Planned Parenthood, the legal fight goes on. And so, does the Left's hypocrisy. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) filed 15 charges against David Daleiden for "illegally" recording a conversation. There's just one problem: state law exempts people who are exposing criminal activity (which violating the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act is). Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Becerra has enjoyed plenty of financial support from Planned Parenthood. 

Meanwhile, where is the mainstream media? The same press that's so quick to defend investigative journalism when the subject is an inhumane slaughterhouse, for instance, is nowhere to be found. If David had gone undercover to expose a puppy mill, he'd be hailed a hero. But because he unmasked the darker side of the nation's largest abortion group, people want to put him in jail! The double standard is maddening.

For more on Daleiden's case, listen to my interview with FRC's Travis Weber on yesterday's "Washington Watch." [http://www.frc.org/wwlivewithtonyperkins/rep-trent-franks-mike-berry-brad-dacus

[bold and italics emphasis mine]