#2173 (12/21) "Polls: Plurality of Americans Support GOP Tax Bill, Economic Confidence Soars"

"POLLS: PLURALITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT GOP TAX BILL, ECONOMIC CONFIDENCE SOARS" - Guy Benson: Dec 20, 2017; 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/20/polls-plurality-of-americans-support-gop-tax-bill-economic-confidence-soars-n2424658 [AS I SEE IT: As I said the other day, the mainstream can't stop from casting the tax reform bill - and just about anything positive our President does - in a negative light. It makes you wonder if the polls they keep presenting were done surveying only liberal Democrats (talk about being rhetorical!). If more Americans were to truly grasp what this bill will do for them, their approval should only increase as should the President's job approval rating. Time will tell how well the Republicans do in getting the  right information out there. - Stan]

     In the lead-up to final passage, I've been harping on how a number of recent polls have measured strong public opposition to the Republican tax reform bill, with majorities of respondents reaching the false conclusion that they'll get hit with a tax increase -- when, in fact, 80 percent of them will get a tax cut, and less than five percent will see a bump in their tax liability.  So I feel like I owe it to you to share some better news, as circumstances permit.

    A new national survey from Politico finds that a nine-point plurality supports the GOP plan (44/35), with respondents (correctly) predicting by substantial margins that the proposal will generally help the US economy, corporations, small businesses, and high income families.  Where the numbers get dicier -- producing approximately even splits are on the legislation's impact on middle- and lower-income taxpayers, as well as 'people like you:'

    Those data points aren't great, but they're much better than other polling we've seen recently.  The Politico survey may prove to be an outlier, but its findings are still worth flagging.  As for the empirical realities behind those perceptions, nonpartisan data demonstrates that middle class taxpayers benefit disproportionately from the tax cuts, and millions of American workers will benefit from the tax overhaul's economic affects.  The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and Tax Foundation each project higher GDP growth (and more jobs) under the plan, though their predictions diverge on how sweeping and enduring those positive outcomes would be.  These signals from manufacturers are certainly a welcome sign, however:

Guy Benson @guypbenson
      "Nearly 63 percent of CEOs said business tax reform would encourage capital spending and more than half said they would expand their businesses."https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/11/manufacturing-ceo-record-high-optimism-on-prospect-of-tax-reform.html …
     Manufacturing CEO survey shows record high optimism on prospect of tax reform. In its quarterly survey, the National Association of Manufacturers found 94.6 percent of CEOs were positive about their company's outlook.

Meanwhile, the latest CNBC poll shows a significant surge in economic optimism among Americans, with President Trump's approval rating ticking up several points as a result:
     "American optimism on the economy is reaching new heights and President Donald Trump's approval ratings look to be benefiting, at least somewhat. The CNBC All-American Economic Survey found that for the first time in at least 11 years, more than half of respondents to the survey rated the economy as good or excellent, while a near record 41 percent expected the economy to improve in the next year.  "We're not measuring a marginal change in the economy, we're measuring a different economy,'' said Public Opinion Strategies' Micah Roberts
     ...The survey found that 42 percent of Americans expect their wages to rise in the next year, and 41 percent of homeowners see their home values going up, the highest level recorded since 2007
    ...Trump's approval rating has mostly been disconnected from the better economic data but that could be changing. With gross domestic product rising strongly the past two quarters and the unemployment rate remaining low, Trump's approval rating has jumped. Forty-two percent in the poll approve of the job Trump is doing as president, up 4 points from the September survey, while 49 percent disapprove, down 3 points
    ...The president's approval numbers are substantially better on the economy. Forty-seven percent approve of his handling of the economy, up 4 points from September, while 43 percent disapprove, up 2 points. For the first time during the Trump presidency, more than half of independents approved of the president's economic stewardship.

This survey found approval for the GOP tax plan underwater at (26/38), but a whopping 36 percent said they don't know enough about the issue, or aren't sure. Republicans would be wise to conduct an all-out messaging blitz because the facts are on their side -- and the side of the vast majority of the American people.  Quinnipiac University's pollster has also detected record-setting economic outlook positivity across the country, yet a majority of respondents in that same survey disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.  Democrats also lead by double digits on the generic Congressional ballot, representing the latest brutal finding on that front for the GOP.  If these numbers are even close to accurate ten months from now (pay close attention to the senior citizen demographic...gulp), Democrats will be riding their own 2010-style backlash midterm wave.  I'll leave you with sub-moronic chanting from insufferable protesters prior to yesterday's House vote on the Republican tax bill:

These people are beyond persuasion (here's my analysis of the "tax reform kills people!" insanity), but perhaps many voters are not -- and maybe their minds will be more open to GOP arguments once they realize their taxes have gone down, not up. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taxpayers Could See Benefits From GOP Tax Bill as Early as February" - Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / December 20, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/20/taxpayers-see-benefits-gop-tax-bill-early-february/
"The Economic Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" - Parker Sheppard / @parkersheppard / David Burton / December 20, 2017; http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/20/the-economic-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
"Survival of the Shrillest" - George Will, Dec. 20, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454820/republican-tax-reform-net-neutrality-democrats-congress-overreaction
"A Solid Accomplishment on Taxes" - by THE (National Review)EDITORS, Dec.18, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454726/republican-tax-bill-solid-accomplishment?target=topic&tid=1104
"Overheated Rhetoric on Tax Reform"- by Michael Tanner, Dec. 6, 2017; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454368/tax-reform-isnt-armageddon?target=topic&tid=1104

#2172 (12/20) "What’s in a (Transgender) Pronoun? - Speaking Truth in Love"

 "WHAT'S IN A (TRANSGENDER) PRONOUN? - SPEAKING  TRUTH IN LOVE" - by: Eric Metaxas & Stan Guthrie, Breakpoint.org, Dec. 15, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/12/breakpoint-whats-transgender-pronoun/

If a transgender person asks you to use a pronoun or name in line with his or her preferred gender, what do you do? It’s no longer a hypothetical question.

In “Romeo and Juliet,” we remember Shakespeare asking, “What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” A rose is still a rose no matter what we call it. But what’s in a pronoun? Specifically, if a neighbor who identifies as transgender asks us to use ze rather than he or she, does it really matter? What should we do to honor the relationship and the gospel?

It’s a sticky issue for Christians, and it’s becoming stickier by the day. That’s why I’m glad to tell you about a very helpful perspective, an article by Andrew Walker entitled, “He, She, Ze, Zir? Navigating pronouns while loving your transgender neighbor.” Walker, who wrote the great book “God and the Transgender Debate,” is Director of Policy Studies at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In the article, Walker exhibits the truth and grace so necessary for believers to navigate these choppy waters in our homes, at work, and in church. Regarding the truth, he forthrightly points out, “Pronouns are not an insignificant issue. … The question we as Christians have to consider is whether the reality we are being asked to affirm is objective and corresponds to biblical truth, or whether the reality we are being asked to acknowledge is subjective and false. Nothing less than the truth and authority of God’s revelation over created reality is up for grabs in something as seemingly innocent as pronoun usage.”

Andrew adds, “Because, at root, the transgender debate is a metaphysical debate about whose version of reality we live in, and only one account—Jesus Christ’s—can lead us into truth about reality and human flourishing.”

The Bible reminds us, as well, to speak the truth in love—that is, with grace. While God’s Word unequivocally says that we’re created male and female, it also makes clear that each of us has been made in God’s image and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and compassion. So while Andrew never backs down from our mandate to obey God’s Word as we see it and follow our consciences, he counsels godly wisdom in how we respond to people, depending on things like the social context and the depth of the relationship.

Surprisingly, Andrew first counsels avoiding the pronoun dilemma whenever possible. Rarely do we have to use the third person when speaking to someone. Second, generally, we can use the person’s preferred first name, since names are gendered culturally. Third, don’t lie! “Those with writing or speaking platforms,” Andrew writes, “have an obligation to speak and write truthfully and not kowtow to political correctness or excuse falsehood. … I will call Bruce Jenner ‘he,’ or if I do say ‘Caitlyn,’ I will still say, ‘him.’”

Then Andrew covers what he calls some “tricky situations.” When it comes to a close family member who is transgender, Andrew says he would not honor the pronoun or first name request. “I know this person intimately,” Andrew explains, “and in all likelihood I possess the relational capital to understand this person’s story and speak truthfully.” He acknowledges this decision may be deemed offensive even when done kindly, but sometimes this is unavoidable.

Same thing with the workplace. If you know the other person well, you should tell him or her the truth. Andrew acknowledges this might mean you will run afoul of company HR policies. “None of this is easy,” he acknowledges, “but Jesus never promised that following him would be without great personal cost.” Indeed not.

I’d tell you what he says about church encounters, but it’s nuanced, .., Just come to BreakPoint.org and we’ll link you to the article. Because, while it may not matter what you call a rose, it matters very much what you call a fellow human being.
For more on this very controversial topic, read Andrew Walker’s book, “God and the Transgender Debate.” It’s available at the online bookstore.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - For more on this very controversial topic, read Andrew Walker’s book, “God and the Transgender Debate.” It’s available at the online bookstore.
"He, She, Ze, Zir? Navigating pronouns while loving your transgender neighbor" - Andrew T. Walker | ERLC.com | December 7, 2017; https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/he-she-ze-zir-navigating-pronouns-while-loving-your-transgender-neighbor
God and the Transgender Debate - Andrew T. Walker | The Good Book Company | August 2017 - https://www.amazon.com/God-Transgender-Debate-Andrew-Walker/dp/1784981788/ref=sr_1_1?
"Call me 'ze,' not 'he': University wants everyone to use 'gender inclusive' pronouns" - Todd Starnes | Fox News | August 28, 2015; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/28/call-me-ze-not-university-wants-everyone-to-use-gender-inclusive-pronouns.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the Pronoun Wars, Be Thankful for the Founding Fathers" - Jarrett Stepman  / December 11, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/11/pronoun-wars-thankful-founding-fathers/

#2171 (12/19) "5 Myths About Tax Reform, and Why They’re Wrong"

"5 MYTHS ABOUT TAX REFORM, AND WHY THEY'RE WRONG" - Adam Michel / Rachel Greszler / December 14, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/14/5-myths-tax-reform-theyre-wrong [AS I SEE IT: I find it amazing how local and national news reports done by network stations frame the issues of our day. Just listen to how they present the tax reform effort being proposed. So one-sided, so biased it's no wonder so many are confused and even negative about it. Why can't stations just report the news objectively? Also, remember yesterday's post (#2170) and how they choose not to even report some stories. Sheesh! - Stan]

The GOP tax reform bill would let American households keep more than $4,000 on average per year. (Photo: iStock Photos)

[During the next few days] the House and Senate will take their final votes on tax reform. The president’s goal is to sign the legislation into law before Christmas.
    Although there are still some unknown details, the important parts of the bill for most Americans are already known and would greatly improve our current, woefully out-of-date tax code. The bottom line is that taxpayers across America can expect a tax cut. The bill would lower tax rates for individuals and businesses, double the standard deduction, and significantly increase the child tax credit.
    The bill is also pro-growth and pro-American worker. The economy could grow to be almost 3 percent larger at the end of 10 years. That translates to more than $4,000 dollars per household, per year. American families could finally get a real raise.

Americans deserve to know the truth about the proposed tax reform packages. There are several myths going around about what the proposed plan would do. Here are a few of them, and why they’re wrong.

Myth 1: This is just a tax cut for the rich, and it will actually raise taxes for everyone else.
     The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. It found similar results for the House bill.
    Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.
    The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over $1 million see a cut of only 6 percent.

In two recent Daily Signal pieces, we calculated how 12 different taxpayers would fare under each of the tax plans. The results show that almost everyone will see a tax cut, and only the wealthiest families are at risk of their taxes going up. Under the current tax code, the top 10 percent of income earners earn about 45 percent of all income and pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The U.S. tax code is already highly progressive, and these tax reforms will only increase the trend of the wealthy paying more than their share of income earned.

Myth 2: Repealing the individual mandate will raise taxes on the poor, raise insurance premiums, and kill 10,000 people a year.
    Only in Washington can removing a tax penalty be considered a tax increase. Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.
    Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families.
    Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices. Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
    The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was. “The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums. While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.
     One particularly outrageous claim is that due to people voluntarily choosing alternative health care solutions, 10,000 people will die each year because the government is no longer forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Two economists reviewed these claims and found the exact opposite. They found that there is “poor evidence linking insurance coverage to mortality” and that “the mandate may in fact be elevating death rates in some populations.”
When you factor in the economic growth and higher wages from tax reform, the tax bill could actually save lives.

Myth 3: Corporations and their rich owners will receive a huge windfall.
    Politicians who don’t want tax reform claim that cutting taxes for business will only help the rich. Despite the name—“corporate” tax reform—the burden of the corporate income tax falls almost entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Americans are undoubtedly skeptical about this claim, but the realities on the ground are actually quite simple. When business taxes go down, workers’ wages go up. That’s not just the result of corporate benevolence. Rather, wages rise because higher profits translate to additional investments that make workers more productive, and businesses that don’t pay workers what they are worth will lose them to competitors who do.
    American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. If tax reform can lower that rate to 21 percent, American businesses and the workers they employ will be globally competitive again. Businesses will invest more, hire more workers, and be forced by the laws of supply and demand to raise wages.
    This is exactly what happened over the past decade and a half in neighboring Canada. In 2007, Canada began lowering its corporate tax rate. And guess what? Wages grew significantly faster in Canada than other comparable countries.
    Most economic researchers agree. A recent review of 10 separate studies published between 2007 and 2015 concluded that when governments cut corporate taxes, workers receive almost all of the benefit through higher wages.

Myth 4: Tax reform will be bad for seniors.
     Retirees may be the most concerned about what tax reform will mean for them, as most rely on relatively fixed incomes. But, the proposed reforms are good news for retirees. For the most part, they would be less affected than other Americans, as the proposed reforms would not change the way Social Security and investment income are taxed.
     Many retirees would in fact benefit from the tax bills’ doubling the size of the standard deduction. While seniors’ earnings and pension income would be subject to new individual income tax brackets and rates, those changes would actually mean tax cuts—not increases—for an overwhelming majority of seniors and retirees.

Myth 5: Tax reform won’t grow the economy, it will only add to the debt.
     Congress rightly allowed the tax reform bill to decrease revenues over 10 years by $1.5 trillion—about 3.5 percent of projected revenue. But such “static” budget scores provide zero useful information about how the reform will actually affect the deficit. Properly designed tax reform will lead to a larger economy and higher wages. Each of these economic benefits can result in more tax revenue.
    A recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that the Senate tax reform bill could boost the size of the U.S. economy by almost 3 percent over the long run. Other estimates are even more optimistic. Nine leading economists recently described how the economy could see a boost of up to 4 percent due to tax reform. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers believes the economy could grow between 3 and 5 percent, a range that was independently verified by three economists from Boston University.
     Tax reform that grows the economy could result in more than $130 billion of new federal revenue in every year outside the current budget window. And that’s using the most conservative of the estimates above.More optimistic estimates would bring in well north of $200 billion, making up most—if not all—of the static tax cut once the economy reaches its new larger potential.

Congress’ spending addiction shouldn’t stop tax reform, but the tax cuts will be short lived if Congress continues to increase spending every year.
     The fact remains that our deficit cannot be eliminated with tax increases. Believing it can denies the fundamental problem: The deficit is driven by out-of-control spending. Spending is where congressional deficit hawks should turn their attention.

It is true that the proposed tax reform packages would mean big changes for individuals, families, and businesses across the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, these changes would be resoundingly positive. Lower- and middle-income families would receive the largest tax cuts, and they would be the primary beneficiaries of business tax reforms that would generate higher wages and more job opportunities across America.

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In 1 Chart, What’s in the Final Tax Reform Bill" - Adam Michel  / December 18, 2017 /http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/18/in-one-chart-whats-in-the-final-tax-reform-bill

#2170 (12/18) "What if America Won a War and No One Cared?"

"WHAT IF AMERICA WON A WAR AND NO ONE CARED ?" - David French, Dec. 14, 2017, 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454655/isis-defeated-why-does-no-one-care

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

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

The momentous news of ISIS’s defeat was greeted, in large part, with silence. Why? The announcement came on Saturday. Just three days before the Alabama special election that transfixed the nation, and on the same day that President Trump fact-checked the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel, Iraq’s prime minister declared victory in the war against ISIS. Iraq — with indispensable American help — has regained control of its cities and its border with Syria. ISIS has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. 

The victory isn’t confined to Iraq. American-allied forces control ISIS’s former capital in Syria, and the world’s largest jihadist army is gone. Bands of insurgents still prowl the countryside, and ISIS cells exist across the world, but the war against the “caliphate” is over. It’s been won. 

So why does no one seem to care? It was exactly three years ago that the Middle East was in crisis. The ISIS blitzkrieg had brought Iraq to its knees. Jihadists controlled immense sections of Iraq and Syria. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi spoke from Mosul’s Great Mosque, declared himself “Caliph Ibrahim,” and called on Muslims across the world to join him in his jihad. They answered his call by the thousands. They flocked to Syria and Iraq from North Africa, Europe, and Asia. Britain was rocked by reports that more of its Muslim residents had joined ISIS than joined the British military. ISIS initiated genocide. It threatened the Kurds. It threatened Baghdad. Americans old enough to remember the fall of Saigon began to wonder: Was history repeating itself? For veterans of the Iraq War like me, these were extraordinarily painful months. Friends died over there. Others lost limbs or suffered terrible wounds. Every man and woman who served in Iraq sacrificed something, even if it was “only” a year of their life. And now our nation looked like a bystander to a calamity. Through withdrawal, we’d squandered the military victory of the Surge. Through withdrawal, we’d empowered our enemies. 

Even after the Obama administration intervened to stave off total defeat, ISIS still dominated the narrative. It helped unleash a wave of terror in Europe. Terror investigations and attempted terror attacks spiked in the U.S. Even while under American and allied aerial assault, ISIS still held territory. It still controlled major cities. Remember how debates about ISIS dominated the presidential primaries? Remember how Donald Trump and Ted Cruz ratcheted up their rhetoric until they both seemed to promise that they’d commit war crimes like carpet bombing and torture to defeat the deadly threat? ISIS was often the most important and most prominent story in the world. 
     Now, however, the caliphate is a smoking ruin. It courted conflict with the great powers. It craved Armageddon, and it got its wish. No one knows ISIS’s exact casualty figures, but its fighters have died by the tens of thousands. I’ve spoken to men who were directly involved in the air campaign, and they have told me that the public doesn’t yet understand the sheer scale and ultimate effectiveness of the American attacks. Yes, we withdrew from Iraq too soon. Yes, our counteroffensive against ISIS unfolded slowly. But we fought back, we trained and equipped allies, and we won. 

This is one of the best stories of the young Trump administration. While many of the battles were fought under Obama, Trump pursued the enemy relentlessly. He delegated decision-making to commanders in the field, they fought within the laws of war, and they prevailed. Trump promised to defeat ISIS, and he has delivered a tremendous victory. 
     Part of the blame, of course, rests with Trump himself. Peruse his Twitter feed for a moment. Aside from the occasional boast about the economy, Trump uses his favorite instrument to wage war on “fake news” and to pursue personal vendettas. It’s hard to blame the press for not reporting more extensively on the war when the president himself is directing its attention elsewhere. He’s the first president in my lifetime who somehow seems determined to distract the public from good news by creating his own bad news. 
      We’re also understandably wary of “mission accomplished” moments. Jihadists, including ISIS jihadists, are still out there seeking to kill Americans. And we shouldn’t minimize that reality in acknowledging the momentous accomplishment of the Caliphate’s defeat. 
    But part of the blame still rests with us. Let’s be honest: Panic and fear make for a better story than victory and peace. I hear all the time from friends who ask me to “write more about good news.” Yet I write about good news all the time, and those pieces are often among my least-read articles. Perhaps I’m simply bad at writing about good things. Or perhaps the public has less appetite for the positive. 

Either way, it’s time for this to change. Americans died in the fight against ISIS. They restored American military victory in Iraq, preserving the gains of the men and women who fought there years before. In the process, they defeated one of most vicious and evil enemies our nation has ever faced. They helped retake cities and liberate the oppressed. They won a war. It’s a victory worth a celebration.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

#2169 (12/17) "Too Much Christmas, too Little Advent? - The Joy of Anticipation"

"TOO MUCH CHRISTMAS, TOO LITTLE ADVENT? - THE JOY OF ANTICIPATION" - by Eric Metaxas & Anne Morse; Breakpoint.org, Dec.12, 2017; http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/12/too-much-christmas-too-little-advent-2/

Advent has been buried under a pile of twinkle lights, plastic reindeer, and the Grinch. Here’s why.

Once upon a time there was a little girl who wanted it to be Christmas every day of the year. A fairy granted her wish: every day, for a whole year, it would be Christmas Day. And what that little girl learned in this funny story by William Dean Howells, is that you really can have too much of a good thing—way too much.
    The little girl had a wonderful Christmas, filled with presents and turkey and plum pudding. And the next day, it was Christmas again! The gifts, the turkey dinner, and all the rest of it. After a few months, the little girl, seeing “those great ugly lumpy stockings dangling at the fireplace, and the disgusting presents . . . burst out crying.” By then, writes Howells, “people didn’t carry presents around nicely any more. They flung them over the fence, or through the window.”

Joseph Bottum relates this amusing tale in his book, “The Christmas Plains,” drawing a parallel between the story and the way we celebrate Christmas today.
    Even before Thanksgiving, Christmas songs blare from our radios; catalogs arrive even earlier. Department store Christmas trees often go up right after Halloween. After weeks of carols and cookies and parties, Bottum notes, Christmas “arrives as an afterthought: not the fulfillment, but only the end, of the long yule season…” In effect, we are celebrating Christmas every day, just like the little girl in the story. And many of us get just as sick of this daily “Christmas” as she did, although we don’t fling gifts at people, I hope.
   Now how on earth did this happen? Well, as Bottum notes, “every secularized holiday tends to lose, in public contexts, the meaning it holds in the religious calendar.”

Advent—the traditional lead-up to Christmas—has vanished, culturally speaking. Its disappearance has left “a hole, from Thanksgiving on, that can be filled only with fiercer, madder, and wilder attempts to anticipate Christmas,” Bottum writes.
    Sadly, he’s right. If we want to celebrate Christmas properly—with “disciplined anticipation” as Bottum puts it–perhaps we need to cut back on all the secular celebrations (if we possibly can—they won’t go without a fight), and make the observance of the days of Advent front and center in our celebrations.

Advent “proclaims an advent—a time before, a looking forward—and it lacks meaning without Christmas” at the end of it, Bottum explains. Christmas, “in turn, lacks meaning without the penitential season of advent to go before it.”

This is why Advent celebrations, both at home and in churches, focus on scriptures that anticipate the coming of Christ. In Micah, we read, “But you, O Bethlehem . . . from you SHALL come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel…” And in Matthew, Joseph is told that Mary “WILL bear a son, and you SHALL call his name Jesus . . .”

Things like Advent calendars and crèches that remain empty until Christmas Eve “give a shape to the anticipation of the season,” says Bottum. And “a season of contrition and sacrifice prepares us to understand and feel something about just how great the gift is when at last the day itself arrives.”

Why not try an Advent devotional to guide you, such as ones by Tim Keller and John Piper? Or check out John Stonestreet’s “He Has Come” talks at the BreakPoint podcast. Make an Advent wreath with your children. And take time every evening to gather your family around, light the Advent candles, read the scriptures, pray, and sing some Christmas hymns that anticipate the coming of Christ.

And then when Christmas Day does arrive, we can greet it, not with a sense of relief that the Christmas “season” is almost over, but with joy for the great gift of Christ.


[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

(This commentary originally aired December 7, 2016.)


RESOURCES - Eric has presented some great suggestions to help re-focus us on the season of Advent. Click on the links below for resources to help in the observance of Advent and for teaching and reading materials during this special time of year.
The Christmas Plains- Joseph Bottum | Image Publisher | October 2012 - https://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Plains-Joseph-Bottum/dp/0770437656
The Dawning of Indestructible Joy: Daily Readings for Advent- John Piper | Crossway Publishing | August 2014 - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9781433542367
Hidden Christmas- Timothy Keller | Penguin Random Publishing| October 2016 - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9780735221659

#2168 (12/16) "Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Closed 32 Clinics in 2017, Runs Fewer Centers Than Ever Before"

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTION BIZ CLOSED 32 CLINICS IN 2017, RUNS FEWER CENTERS THAN EVER BEFORE" - Dec. 13, 2017| http://www.lifenews.com/2017/12/13/planned-parenthood-abortion-biz-closed-32-clinics-in-2017-runs-fewer-centers-than-ever-before/

Planned Parenthood loses 27 more facilities in 2017 and is down to 597 in the US.

Prior to 2002, there was no easy way of verifying exactly how many Planned Parenthood medical facilities existed in the United States. Planned Parenthood published a number every year and we had to believe its number. But, by 2002, the network of STOPP contacts across the United States had grown so much that we could verify a lot of PP’s claims. In addition, the Internet had become very useful and helped us track everything. As a result, we began doing an annual survey of PP locations and were able to obtain the physical address of every single one of PP’s offices.

This just-completed survey is our 16th, and, for the first time, the number of Planned Parenthood facilities fell below 600. To be exact, PP now has 597 facilities. You can compare that with 700 facilities in 1973—when Roe v. Wade was decided—and 938 in 1995, when PP was at its peak.
Officially titled American Life League’s 2017 Planned Parenthood Facilities Report, the survey was released just today and shows an organization in a continuing free fall.

During 2017, Planned Parenthood closed 32 medical facilities in 16 states while opening in just five new communities—one in each of five states. When comparing this year’s results with its 1995 peak, we see that Planned Parenthood closed 36 percent of its facilities!

In addition, during this year, Planned Parenthood closed its last facility in Wyoming. Thus, Wyoming joins North Dakota as the two states in which Planned Parenthood does not currently operate a single medical facility.

The loss of these 341 physical facilities over the last 22 years has negatively affected Planned Parenthood’s customer base and, in many areas, its ability to influence public opinion.

Planned Parenthood has tried to offset this loss of facilities by opening larger and more upscale buildings to attract new customers and accommodate those people who went to its now closed facilities. A careful analysis of the Planned Parenthood customer count—given in its annual reports from 2006 through 2015 (the last year for which Planned Parenthood has released data)—shows this is not working. During that 10-year stretch, Planned Parenthood closed 24.9 percent of its facilities and saw its customer base drop by 23.6 percent.

The dwindling facilities and customer numbers have also had an effect on Planned Parenthood’s single most profitable activity—abortions. Despite its ever-increasing emphasis on abortion, it has struggled to even maintain its abortion business numbers. Over the last eight years, PP has averaged 328,302 abortions a year—with very little year-to-year fluctuation. Now 328,000 is a lot of dead innocent human beings (even one is too many), but, as the report shows, it is estimated that at least 50,000 babies will be saved in 2018 because these PP centers are no longer around.

There are many ways to fight Planned Parenthood. A large number of groups fight Planned Parenthood each and every day, and each has its own strategy on how best to stop Planned Parenthood’s activities. Many contribute to the closing of PP facilities. ALL’s STOPP program wholeheartedly supports these measures, including the ending of taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood.

Our focus for the last 35 years has always been on the local level with an aim of working with local people to close every Planned Parenthood facility in the United States. To that end, we have had people on the road giving thousands of speeches; leading hundreds of peaceful, prayerful protests; and inspiring many to take up the fight. To borrow a word from Planned Parenthood, we advocate a comprehensive fight against Planned Parenthood at the local level. We fight to keep Planned Parenthood out of the schools, out of local government budgets, and out of our children’s lives.

This 2017 report strengthens our resolve to keep this as our primary emphasis. When you read the report and digest the numbers, we are sure you will agree that Planned Parenthood’s days are numbered. It is about to reach a tipping point, at which time it will simply implode.

Get your copy of this new report at stopp.org/2017-facilities-report/.

 [bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews Note: Jim Sedlak is executive director of American Life League and founder of STOPP International. He has been fighting Planned Parenthood, and winning, since 1985.

#2167 (12/15) "What the Founders Understood About Religious Freedom That We Must Recover"

"WHAT THE FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM THAT WE MUST RECOVER"- Michael Berry  / December 14, 2017 / http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/14/founders-understood-religious-freedom-must-recover

James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution," proposed what eventually became the First Amendment. (Photo: World History Archive/Newscom)

[TODAY]Friday, Dec. 15, marks the anniversary of the day our young nation ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791.
     Given the national discussion in recent days over whether the government may compel speech from an ordinary baker, now is an especially good time to consider the very first words of our charter document: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Many today mistakenly interpret these religion clauses to mean something like, “Americans are tolerant of private religious conduct.” But mere “toleration” of “private” religious conduct was precisely what James Madison, a primary author of the Bill of Rights, was careful to avoid. He favored the protection of robust freedom.
    Madison’s commitment to religious freedom in public may have begun when he reviewed the proposed Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. That document suggested “all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion.” Yet years earlier, he had personally witnessed the supposedly tolerant Colony of Virginia imprison Baptist ministers because their beliefs were out of step with the predominantly Anglican colony. Such religious “tolerance” sent minority ministers to jail.
    More fundamentally, Madison recoiled at the notion that exercise of religion was a gift from government to be merely “tolerated.” He saw it rather as a hallmark of a free society—an unalienable right endowed by a creator—that exists independent of government.

Many years after witnessing religious persecution in Virginia, Madison chaired the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights. In that role, he seized the opportunity to reject the language of toleration, instead grounding his proposal for the First Amendment in the language of individual liberty: “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship … nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”
    The states ratified a revised version of Madison’s text as the First Amendment to our Constitution, and the first of our Bill of Rights. His gift to the fledgling republic was to reject the notion that individual rights, and pre-eminently religious liberty, were mere tokens bestowed by a beneficent state, replacing that view with the remarkable notion that these rights are inseparable from our humanity.

In other words, the right of every person to enjoy religious liberty doesn’t exist just because the government says it does—and any government that attempts to dictate otherwise risks illegitimacy.
That robust view of religious liberty served as a foundation for the remainder of what would become our Bill of Rights.
    On Sept. 25, 1789, Congress sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. Two hundred and twenty-eight years ago this month, the states ratified these guarantees of natural rights, embedding them into the DNA of our nation.

America’s unique understanding of individual liberty is captured in the first three words of the Constitution, to which the Bill of Rights was appended: “We the people.” From the preamble to the end of Article VII, the Constitution outlines how these people would form “a more perfect union” without abdicating their individual liberty to a monarch or a tyrant.
    The governed gave their consent to lend some, but not all, of their individual authority as human beings to a central government. For instance, while they would remain free to defend themselves individually, they would vest the authority for the collective defense of the new nation to a government that could raise an army.

Thus, it is significant that after outlining the positive rights of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government on matters ranging from taxation to foreign relations, the Bill of Rights begins by negating the power of Congress—“Congress shall make no law … ”—and recognizing the inherent rights of the people. The reason for this is simple, revolutionary, and profound: Congress shall make no law because the people retain those rights articulated in the Bill of Rights by virtue of their humanity.

While it was, and is, necessary to lend government a limited amount of individual authority “to provide for the common defense” and “to promote the general welfare,” we the people have never ceded the rights of the free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, bearing of arms, due process, and those rights preserved within the Bill of Rights.
    This was, and is, revolutionary. No nation had ever successfully undertaken to recognize, much less resolve, the tension between individual liberty and government as America did with its Bill of Rights.

Yet, this tension is a delicate one whose safeguarding demands vigilance and care. Madison was right to be wary of a government that treats civil rights as government-issued. And, as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of Jack Phillips makes clear, so must we.

The legacy of the Bill of Rights is this: What government did not create, it can neither bestow nor confiscate.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Michael Berry is deputy general counsel and director of military affairs for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all.