[NOTE:Once again, please remember to watch today’s broadcast of "Truth That Transforms" (Orlando - Sun.-5 pm, ch. 55.1; Mon. 7 pm, ch. 52.2) or download it at www.truthinaction.org]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday Funny (c/o MikeysFunnies.com) - I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Do young people leave church because of politics…or the Bible? by Dr. Tom Askew; http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/morality-in-america
Like the blind men who each gave a different report on what an elephant is like, those who analyze demographic and statistical trends ascribe all kinds of reasons for the phenomena they see.
In the “hot button” topic of religion and politics, a new work by academics Robert Putnam and David Campbell entitled, “God and Caesar in America: Why Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both,” is creating all kinds of speculation, some of which may even be supported by the evidence.
What was discovered > A recent study by the Barna Group conducted on teenagers and young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 concluded that nearly three out of every five young Christians, or 59 percent, disconnect from church life either permanently or for a long period of time after the age of 15. Those polled were active in a Christian church during their teen years. A 2007 survey conducted by LifeWay Research found that 70 percent of 23- to 30-year-olds admitted to breaking regular church attendance for at least a year from ages 18 to 22. Fifty-two percent of these dropouts attributed their departure to “religious, ethical or political beliefs.” Campbell and Putnam report that between 2006 and 2011, the proportion of the population that reported having no religion rose modestly, from 17 percent to 19 percent, but among young Americans rose five times as much.
What does it mean? > If, according to Lifeway, 52 percent of the dropouts claim “religious, ethical or political beliefs,” what is it in Christianity that these young people object to? According to Putnam and Campbell, “religion” [to these young people] means “Republican,” “intolerant” and “homophobic.” Since those traits do not represent their views, they do not see themselves – or wish to be seen by their peers – as religious.”
Putnam and Campbell make the broad assumption that “politics is more likely to determine religion than religion to determine politics.” Campbell likes to use the image of a “brand” from marketing. He asserts that “the Republican brand has been increasingly associated with religion and social conservatism due to the influence of the Christian Right, a social movement which has been a part of the Republican coalition since the 1980s. Moderates and Democrats are uncomfortable with that brand and seek to not be identified.”
That seems to be an unwarranted assumption. If Christian beliefs are based on Scripture, which does happen to have a position on homosexuality, for example, the scholars would do well to remember that these beliefs existed centuries before America had political parties. The fact that people who know and believe the Bible happen to associate with like-minded people, which on occasion leads to supporting political positions which are favorable to a biblical lifestyle, should not be a great surprise, either.
Furthermore, it should not be shocking that many young people do not want to identify with scriptural positions on homosexuality, fornication and abortion. These positions run counter to everything teenagers idolize in their role models and movies. There is little a thinking Christian can do to temper the biblical position to make it more palatable to youth who may be mesmerized by every fashionable notion that American pop culture dictates.
What’s the end result? > If a person has rejected God’s standards for worldly standards, and any individual or group (even a political party) happens to take a stand which supports the biblical standard, then those who accept God’s standard will naturally lean in that direction. It is belittling to Bible-believing Christians to characterize them as consumers who are mindlessly attracted to a certain “brand” rather than as thinkers who look for God’s wisdom in every avenue of life.
Therefore, let us pray:
◦For wisdom to see where truth lies in a world increasingly bent on manipulating other people’s opinions.
◦For faithfulness to God’s Word as your source and inspiration.
◦For discernment about the groups and causes with which you are beckoned to identify ourselves.
◦For a biblical spiritual renewal in America.
Dr. Tom Askew has been an educator in both public and private schools for 37 years, in Hong Kong, Germany, Georgia, and Arizona. He is currently doing educational consulting and instruction for Christian schools in Arizona.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
------------------------------------------------------------
Your Comments (The following expressions and comments are from our members and do not necessarily represent or reflect the biblical or world views or opinions of the Presidential Prayer Team.)
◦Cindy Case (March 29, 2012)says:
Consideration should be given to the state of our government (public) schools where references to God has been replaced by post-modern relativistic philosophies that teach homosexuality is normal, sex is encouraged by the distribution of birth control, the family and marriage is ridiculed and the sanctity of life no longer has meaning to a generation who believes they evolved from animals. In the last 200 years we have allowed socialist ideology to creep into our schools, and the parental responsibility to educate our children has been abdicated to the government schools. Why are we surprised, then, that our youth find “religion” irrelevant????
-----------------------------------------
March 29, 2012 - Understand How We Have failed!By Larry Dozier, M.Ed.
Revival occurs when Christians influence the world.
Apostasy occurs when the world influences Christians.
The influence of the world is subtle, but very effective. It causes the love of Christians to slowly cool toward the Lord as they gradually conform to the ways to the world. God has allowed Humanism to gain supremacy in our country because we have abandoned our God-given responsibilities. Each responsibility that we have surrendered has been seized by the Humanists that are now using them against us.
We have sinned because:
1. We have delegated the responsibility of teaching our children to secular schools.
2. We have turned over the spiritual leadership of our families to our wives.
3. We have put our jobs and careers ahead of family needs.
4. We have encouraged our wives to pursue careers and work outside of the home.
5. We have separated our children from the influence of their grandparents.
6. We have been overcome by lust and sensual habits.
7. We have damaged our marriages and have accepted the error of divorce and remarriage, while pursuing the things of God, rather than the God of the things.
8. We have expected our children to make life’s major decisions without adequate counsel, training or preparation.
“We acknowledge, O lord our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee”, Jeremiah 14:20.
“If my people … will humble themselves, pray, seek…
Thursday, March 29, 2012
#193 (3/30) - 'And Now the Supreme Court Must Decide"
[NOTE: Please check my Sunday Special posting about what may be causing young people to leave the church. It's entitled "Chicken or the Egg?"]
--------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: Having heard the case concerning Obamacare, the Supreme Court is scheduled to meet make their decision TODAY (Friday) but not reveal their decision till sometime in June. It is therefore important to be praying today for them to decide rightly according to the Constitution and what will inevitably best serve the interests of the American people. Even until their decision is announced, it is important to continue prayingas even how the decision is written up until then can be crucial. Also, links to other articles follow the one below.]
- Posted By Mike Brownfield On March 29, 2012
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org;URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/29/morning-bell-and-now-the-supreme-court-must-decide/
For the past three days, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard a series of arguments on Obamacare — what promises to be one of the most seminal decisions in the Court’s history. Now that the dust has settled, it appears more than likely that President Obama’s signature health care law is on the verge of being struck down — perhaps even in its entirety.
The challengers to the law include more than half of the States of the Union, the National Federation of Independent Business, and private parties, while the Obama Administration is standing in defense of it. Having heard arguments on Monday on whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act would bar the Court from considering whether Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the Court on Tuesday moved on to examining the mandate [1] itself and whether Congress vaulted across the Maginot Line of constitutionality when it imposed the mandate on Americans.
The liberal justices of the Court hammered the attorneys who were challenging Obamacare, leaving little doubt where they stand on the law. In their view, it appears, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause [2], which gives Congress the authority “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” also empowers Congress to impose the individual mandate. As the government argued, since everyone will have to participate in the health care market at some point, the government is justified in requiring people to buy insurance today.
Heritage’s Todd Gaziano explains [1] the failure of this argument:
"There’s a difference between regulating commerce that’s already happening and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce — in this case, the health care market — so that Congress can better regulate it… If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power."
That’s an argument that resonated with the Court’s conservative justices and with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oftentimes votes with the conservatives but is seen as a crucial swing vote in this case. At two different times, Justice Kennedy stated that the government’s theory would “fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.” His thinking on the issue could be a bad sign for Obamacare.
If the Court were to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate, it would also have to consider what to do with the rest of the law. Should the justices just strike down the mandate? Should they eliminate the mandate and any of the related sections (which would be difficult to identify), or should they throw out the whole law? This question is what’s known as “severability,” and it was one of the focuses of the third day of oral argument [3]. And on this issue, too, the Obama Administration did not have a good day. Heritage’s Todd Gaziano and Hans von Spakovsky explain [3]:
"The more liberal justices were clearly hostile to the arguments being made by Paul Clement on behalf of the challengers that the entire statute must be struck down. However, other justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, were obviously concerned that the complex scheme designed by Congress will not work as intended by Congress without the individual mandate — which is the ‘heart’ of the law as Justice Scalia and others later referred to it — and thus they may need to strike down the entire law if the mandate is unconstitutional."
One issue remained for the Court — Obamacare’s Medicaid spending provisions under which Congress relies on its “spending power” to expand the program and coerce states to do its bidding. Those challenging the law say that the Medicaid expansion effectively “commandeers” state government, thereby undermining the states’ sovereignty and autonomy. On this question, it is less clear where the Court will come down. Though the liberal justices who would uphold the individual mandate will certainly uphold the Medicaid provisions, it’s less clear where Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas stand on the issue. But if the Court chooses to strike down all of Obamacare, the Medicaid provisions will fall along with it and the justices will not have to decide this issue. A ruling on all issues is expected from the Court in June.
In making his final argument in defense of Obamacare, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli alluded to the Constitution’s preamble and its call to “secure the blessings of liberty” in his justification for Congress’ actions. Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of Obamacare’s challengers, eloquently responded [4] to Verrilli’s call to the Constitution:
"Let me just finish by saying I certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it’s a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. And it’s a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can’t refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it’s voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. That is a direct threat to our federalism."
The Constitution’s words are stirring, indeed, but have little meaning if Congress is to trample on the founding document’s very real limitations. And so America waits for the Court to decide, two years after a severely divided Congress passed Obamacare and stretched its powers beyond the Constitution. But whether the Court upholds Obamacare or strikes it down, all or in part, it does not have the final say on this issue. It ultimately falls to the American people, through their representatives in Congress, to decide the future of health care in America and whether the federal government will live within its constitutional limits. Obamacare must be fully repealed.
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
URLs in this post:
[1] moved on to examining the mandate: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/27/individual-mandate-under-fire-obamacare-at-the-court-day-2/
[2] Commerce Clause: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/commerce-commerce-everywhere-the-uses-and-abuses-of-the-commerce-clause
[3] third day of oral argument: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/28/day-3-at-the-court-severability-and-coercive-medicaid-conditions/
-------------------------------------------------------------
"ObamaCare’s lonely birthday- He’s just a bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill."
- by John Hayward - 03/23/2012 (John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50407
-------------------------------------------------------------
"The ObamaCare Hydra" - by Michelle Malkin - 3/23/2012
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50400
"The Hydra was a mythical swamp beast whose multiple heads grew back after being severed. Obamacare is a real Washington monster whose countless hidden bureaucracies keep sprouting forth even after they're rooted out. As soon as combatants lop off one of the law's unconstitutional agencies, another takes its place..."
-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: Having heard the case concerning Obamacare, the Supreme Court is scheduled to meet make their decision TODAY (Friday) but not reveal their decision till sometime in June. It is therefore important to be praying today for them to decide rightly according to the Constitution and what will inevitably best serve the interests of the American people. Even until their decision is announced, it is important to continue prayingas even how the decision is written up until then can be crucial. Also, links to other articles follow the one below.]
- Posted By Mike Brownfield On March 29, 2012
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org;URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/29/morning-bell-and-now-the-supreme-court-must-decide/
For the past three days, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard a series of arguments on Obamacare — what promises to be one of the most seminal decisions in the Court’s history. Now that the dust has settled, it appears more than likely that President Obama’s signature health care law is on the verge of being struck down — perhaps even in its entirety.
The challengers to the law include more than half of the States of the Union, the National Federation of Independent Business, and private parties, while the Obama Administration is standing in defense of it. Having heard arguments on Monday on whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act would bar the Court from considering whether Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the Court on Tuesday moved on to examining the mandate [1] itself and whether Congress vaulted across the Maginot Line of constitutionality when it imposed the mandate on Americans.
The liberal justices of the Court hammered the attorneys who were challenging Obamacare, leaving little doubt where they stand on the law. In their view, it appears, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause [2], which gives Congress the authority “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” also empowers Congress to impose the individual mandate. As the government argued, since everyone will have to participate in the health care market at some point, the government is justified in requiring people to buy insurance today.
Heritage’s Todd Gaziano explains [1] the failure of this argument:
"There’s a difference between regulating commerce that’s already happening and forcing individual Americans to enter into commerce — in this case, the health care market — so that Congress can better regulate it… If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power."
That’s an argument that resonated with the Court’s conservative justices and with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oftentimes votes with the conservatives but is seen as a crucial swing vote in this case. At two different times, Justice Kennedy stated that the government’s theory would “fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.” His thinking on the issue could be a bad sign for Obamacare.
If the Court were to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate, it would also have to consider what to do with the rest of the law. Should the justices just strike down the mandate? Should they eliminate the mandate and any of the related sections (which would be difficult to identify), or should they throw out the whole law? This question is what’s known as “severability,” and it was one of the focuses of the third day of oral argument [3]. And on this issue, too, the Obama Administration did not have a good day. Heritage’s Todd Gaziano and Hans von Spakovsky explain [3]:
"The more liberal justices were clearly hostile to the arguments being made by Paul Clement on behalf of the challengers that the entire statute must be struck down. However, other justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, were obviously concerned that the complex scheme designed by Congress will not work as intended by Congress without the individual mandate — which is the ‘heart’ of the law as Justice Scalia and others later referred to it — and thus they may need to strike down the entire law if the mandate is unconstitutional."
One issue remained for the Court — Obamacare’s Medicaid spending provisions under which Congress relies on its “spending power” to expand the program and coerce states to do its bidding. Those challenging the law say that the Medicaid expansion effectively “commandeers” state government, thereby undermining the states’ sovereignty and autonomy. On this question, it is less clear where the Court will come down. Though the liberal justices who would uphold the individual mandate will certainly uphold the Medicaid provisions, it’s less clear where Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas stand on the issue. But if the Court chooses to strike down all of Obamacare, the Medicaid provisions will fall along with it and the justices will not have to decide this issue. A ruling on all issues is expected from the Court in June.
In making his final argument in defense of Obamacare, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli alluded to the Constitution’s preamble and its call to “secure the blessings of liberty” in his justification for Congress’ actions. Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of Obamacare’s challengers, eloquently responded [4] to Verrilli’s call to the Constitution:
"Let me just finish by saying I certainly appreciate what the solicitor general says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it’s a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. And it’s a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the states an offer that they can’t refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it’s voluntary, we can force the states to do whatever we tell them to. That is a direct threat to our federalism."
The Constitution’s words are stirring, indeed, but have little meaning if Congress is to trample on the founding document’s very real limitations. And so America waits for the Court to decide, two years after a severely divided Congress passed Obamacare and stretched its powers beyond the Constitution. But whether the Court upholds Obamacare or strikes it down, all or in part, it does not have the final say on this issue. It ultimately falls to the American people, through their representatives in Congress, to decide the future of health care in America and whether the federal government will live within its constitutional limits. Obamacare must be fully repealed.
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
URLs in this post:
[1] moved on to examining the mandate: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/27/individual-mandate-under-fire-obamacare-at-the-court-day-2/
[2] Commerce Clause: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/commerce-commerce-everywhere-the-uses-and-abuses-of-the-commerce-clause
[3] third day of oral argument: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/28/day-3-at-the-court-severability-and-coercive-medicaid-conditions/
-------------------------------------------------------------
"ObamaCare’s lonely birthday- He’s just a bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill."
- by John Hayward - 03/23/2012 (John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50407
-------------------------------------------------------------
"The ObamaCare Hydra" - by Michelle Malkin - 3/23/2012
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50400
"The Hydra was a mythical swamp beast whose multiple heads grew back after being severed. Obamacare is a real Washington monster whose countless hidden bureaucracies keep sprouting forth even after they're rooted out. As soon as combatants lop off one of the law's unconstitutional agencies, another takes its place..."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
#195 (4/4) - Obama Whispers Away America’s Security"
[NOTE: When President Obama's re-election campaign gets into high gear, you can be sure that on the foreign policy front, his multi-million dollar ads won't mention items like what this article points out. There are many other examples of the President's failure in this area but let the following remind you of what his record has really been like.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By Mike Gonzalez On March 27, 2012;
Article printed from The Foundry:Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/27/morning-bell-obama-whispers-away-americas-security/
It is hard to overstate the dangerous implications of what happened this week when President Obama was caught by an open mic sending a message to Russia’s dictator-in-waiting to wait quietly till after the November elections, after which Mr. Obama could make concessions on America’s national defense. The White House is trying to explain this incident away as par for the course in an electoral year. It is not.
Here, in essence, is what it appears to be: this was our commander in chief in league with an anti-American autocrat to dupe the American public until after it’s too late. What makes it even worse is that the issue at hand–missile defense–has to do with protecting the American people against the likes of Russia.
We don’t need to exaggerate what happened. All we need is to review what Obama, our President, was caught telling Russia’s current president, Dmitri Medvedev, while the two met at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. Neither man knew the microphones were live and picked up their exchange. Here it is:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama:(reaching over and putting his hand on Mr. Medvedev’s knee): This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
The Vladimir in question is none other than Vladimir Putin, who just won elections in Russia this month under a cloud of suspicion, to replace Mr. Medvedev, who has been a fig leaf president for the past four years while Mr. Putin has wielded power from his post as prime minister.
Mr. Putin, who has been open and public in his disdain for both the United States and President Obama in particular, opposes American foreign policy from Syria to Asia to Latin America. He is the poster child for a new breed of authoritarian world leaders who openly want to thwart America’s intentions. Most recently, Putin used hostile rhetoric toward the United States [1] as a tool in his re-election campaign, labeling opposition leaders puppets of the CIA. That followed Russia’s decision at the United Nations Security Council to veto a U.S.-backed resolution calling for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step aside.
The President’s surreptitious hat-tip to Putin comes at a dangerous time for the American people and U.S. allies. North Korea is preparing to launch yet another long-range missile, and Iran is in desperate pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies remain unprotected [2] from the threat of nuclear missiles, and now it appears that Obama wants to cede even more ground to Russia on vital national security issues.
The President, probably sensing the potential gravity of the situation, quickly addressed the incident. He tried to defend himself yesterday by saying:"Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. The stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is probably pretty good evidence of that. I think we’ll do better in 2013."
But this is not how democracy works. In asking Mr. Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to “give me space” until he can be more flexible next year if he gets re-elected this November, Mr. Obama was clearly telegraphing the willingness to give Mr. Putin at least part of what he wants on missile defense. This President has already given too much. In the New START strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, President Obama agreed that U.S. missile defense capabilities must be reduced along with strategic nuclear weapons — essentially laying down America’s arms and its shield, as well. Now it appears that President Obama wishes to go even a step farther in order to appease Mr. Putin. Where that step leads, we truly don’t know. All we can see is the direction the President is already headed.
The exchange with Mr. Medvedev, lastly, only deepens and validates two already extant and related narratives about our President: one is that he harbors views that are inimical to the American people and only come out in unguarded moments. An example of that is when he said in San Francisco four years ago that Americans cling to their religion and guns bitterly when they’re afraid of the future. The other narrative is that the President will be unshackled once (and if) he is re-elected, and will put in place a plan far more radical than he is letting on in public at the moment.
If concessions to Russia on missile defense are what Mr. Obama wants, he can make his case to the American people and ask them to endorse his policies. To hide them until it is too late and he is safely ensconced in office is unseemly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
URLs in this post:
[1] hostile rhetoric toward the United States: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577205103838936154.html
[2] unprotected: http://33-minutes.com/33-minutes/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik
Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/27/obama-in-south-korea-is-no-reagan-in-reykjavik/ Tuesday, March 27th
"...With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama’s opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality..."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By Mike Gonzalez On March 27, 2012;
Article printed from The Foundry:Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/27/morning-bell-obama-whispers-away-americas-security/
It is hard to overstate the dangerous implications of what happened this week when President Obama was caught by an open mic sending a message to Russia’s dictator-in-waiting to wait quietly till after the November elections, after which Mr. Obama could make concessions on America’s national defense. The White House is trying to explain this incident away as par for the course in an electoral year. It is not.
Here, in essence, is what it appears to be: this was our commander in chief in league with an anti-American autocrat to dupe the American public until after it’s too late. What makes it even worse is that the issue at hand–missile defense–has to do with protecting the American people against the likes of Russia.
We don’t need to exaggerate what happened. All we need is to review what Obama, our President, was caught telling Russia’s current president, Dmitri Medvedev, while the two met at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. Neither man knew the microphones were live and picked up their exchange. Here it is:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama:(reaching over and putting his hand on Mr. Medvedev’s knee): This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
The Vladimir in question is none other than Vladimir Putin, who just won elections in Russia this month under a cloud of suspicion, to replace Mr. Medvedev, who has been a fig leaf president for the past four years while Mr. Putin has wielded power from his post as prime minister.
Mr. Putin, who has been open and public in his disdain for both the United States and President Obama in particular, opposes American foreign policy from Syria to Asia to Latin America. He is the poster child for a new breed of authoritarian world leaders who openly want to thwart America’s intentions. Most recently, Putin used hostile rhetoric toward the United States [1] as a tool in his re-election campaign, labeling opposition leaders puppets of the CIA. That followed Russia’s decision at the United Nations Security Council to veto a U.S.-backed resolution calling for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step aside.
The President’s surreptitious hat-tip to Putin comes at a dangerous time for the American people and U.S. allies. North Korea is preparing to launch yet another long-range missile, and Iran is in desperate pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies remain unprotected [2] from the threat of nuclear missiles, and now it appears that Obama wants to cede even more ground to Russia on vital national security issues.
The President, probably sensing the potential gravity of the situation, quickly addressed the incident. He tried to defend himself yesterday by saying:"Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. The stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is probably pretty good evidence of that. I think we’ll do better in 2013."
But this is not how democracy works. In asking Mr. Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to “give me space” until he can be more flexible next year if he gets re-elected this November, Mr. Obama was clearly telegraphing the willingness to give Mr. Putin at least part of what he wants on missile defense. This President has already given too much. In the New START strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, President Obama agreed that U.S. missile defense capabilities must be reduced along with strategic nuclear weapons — essentially laying down America’s arms and its shield, as well. Now it appears that President Obama wishes to go even a step farther in order to appease Mr. Putin. Where that step leads, we truly don’t know. All we can see is the direction the President is already headed.
The exchange with Mr. Medvedev, lastly, only deepens and validates two already extant and related narratives about our President: one is that he harbors views that are inimical to the American people and only come out in unguarded moments. An example of that is when he said in San Francisco four years ago that Americans cling to their religion and guns bitterly when they’re afraid of the future. The other narrative is that the President will be unshackled once (and if) he is re-elected, and will put in place a plan far more radical than he is letting on in public at the moment.
If concessions to Russia on missile defense are what Mr. Obama wants, he can make his case to the American people and ask them to endorse his policies. To hide them until it is too late and he is safely ensconced in office is unseemly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
URLs in this post:
[1] hostile rhetoric toward the United States: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577205103838936154.html
[2] unprotected: http://33-minutes.com/33-minutes/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama in South Korea is no Reagan in Reykjavik
Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/27/obama-in-south-korea-is-no-reagan-in-reykjavik/ Tuesday, March 27th
"...With an open microphone, Barack Obama has now done the same to himself. One of the arguments Barack Obama’s opponents make is that after this next election, Obama will not have to worry about public support for his actions. Without having to worry about losing an election, the President who has already gone to war against religious groups, dragged his feet on oil drilling expansion, and sought to destroy private health care for American citizens will be even more emboldened to bring his European style socialist vision for America to reality..."
Friday, March 23, 2012
[scroll DOWN to find #192 (3/28)] #191 (3/26) - An Urgent Prayer Request! As Obamacare Goes to the Supeme Court
[Note: Beginning today, Monday 3/26, through Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that will determine if the Obamacare bill passed 2 years ago will be allowed to be kept in place and threaten our nation's healthcare system and economy for generations to come. I urge you to please take a moment as you pray for every meal during the next 3 days that God will guide the justices to render a decison (expected in June) that will decisively upend this unconstitutional law.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Thot from MikeysFunnies.com > If you set your expectations too high, you could miss the glory staring you in the face.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Obamacare’s Dreadful Anniversary
Posted By Mike Brownfield, On March 23, 2012, The Heritage Foundation
Two years ago today, President Barack Obama signed into law Obamacare, a 2,700-page bill that will radically alter America’s health care system and wreak havoc on medical costs, quality of care, and fundamental rights in ways that are beyond the scope of our imagination.
Much of what was contained in Obamacare was hatched behind closed doors where not even the slightest ray of light could find its way in. Even the men and women in Congress who were entrusted to represent the people cast their votes blindly, not knowing what lay in store. As even then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously admitted [1], “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”
The American people have already spoken, however. They want this law repealed and tossed out, as we have seen in poll after poll for the past two years. None of the activities being planned by the White House to gussy up this law will likely make a dent on the unpopularity of Obamacare.
Though even today, two years later, much of Obamacare remains to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we know some of what’s contained in the law and the ramifications for the American people. Most broadly, Obamacare rips vast powers from the hands of individual patients and their families, and it vests control in Washington bureaucrats. And the costs are far greater than the Administration claim — heading as high as $2.134 trillion with millions Americans dependent on government for their health care.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that under the President’s health care law, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits and the individual and employer penalties related to the mandates could hit $221 billion. At the time of passage, many people warned as much.
But wait, there’s more... Seniors will suffer as Obamacare robs savings from Medicare in order to fund new government spending while threatening seniors’ access to care and ending Medicare as we know it [2]. On top of that, as Heritage’s Alyene Senger writes [3], Obamacare makes extreme cuts to Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to receive their Medicare benefits through a private health care plan of their choice. And it puts a group of 15 unelected officials in charge of finding cuts in Medicare to meet new spending limits.
Young Americans will suffer as well [4]. Though the President brags that his law allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26, they ultimately will face higher premiums, perverse incentives to stay uninsured, and the burden of paying the extraordinary costs that the law brings with it.
There are even more consequences under Obamacare: families will pay higher taxes [5]; businesses will face new mandates and costs [6]; investment income [7] will get hit with new taxes, discouraging investment and harming economic growth; Americans who purchase medicine with Health Savings Account or Flexible Savings Accounts will face new limitations [8]; those who purchase medical devices [9] will face higher taxes; and marriage is penalized [10] as a result of the new subsidy scheme.
There are significant moral implications, too. Heritage’s Sarah Torre wrote [11] yesterday of news about an abortion surcharge, which follows the HHS mandate that insurance plans must cover on abortion-inducing drugs and contraception: [12]
These episodes are rapidly becoming the status quo of Obamacare implementation, with a familiar and predictable plot line: an unaccountable bureaucracy releases complicated rules on morally fraught healthcare decisions, runs roughshod over Americans’ moral concerns and personal freedom, and then tries to obscure the flaws of the legislation with accounting legerdemain and limited disclosure.
Last week, a CBS/New York Times poll [13] on the HHS mandate showed strong support for religious liberty, with 57 percent of respondents saying that religious employers should not be coerced to violate their doctrine and conscience by providing coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and contraception in their health plans, compared to 36 percent who thought they should. A sizable majority — 51 percent to 40 percent — favored a religious and moral exemption for all employers.Today at noon Americans will rally in 140 locations [14] across the country to protest Obamacare’s trampling of religious liberty. In Washington, D.C., they’ll gather right in front of HHS and demand that the moral compass for personal health decisions be pried out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats and put back in the hands of the people.
And on Monday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s controversial individual mandate, which for the first time ever forces Americans to buy a product — health care — against their will. This provision is the core of the President’s health care law, and it is a direct attack on individual liberty. Unless the Court strikes down Obamacare in its entirety, Congress must stand ready to finish the job. The American people should continue to make their voices heard, demand a repeal of Obamacare, and insist on real health care reform that increases access without forcing Americans to fall under government control.
Join Heritage in voicing your support for this cause, raise your voices against this intolerable act, take a stand to defend liberty, and sign our Repeal Obamacare petition today: https://www.facebook.com/heritagefoundation/app_172930526142342
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/23/morning-bell-obamacares-dreadful-anniversary/
URLs in this post:
[1] famously admitted: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/
[2] ending Medicare as we know it: http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2012/01/obamacare-obama-ends-medicare-as-we-know-it
[3] writes: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/19/obamacares-second-anniversary-no-gift-for-seniors/
[4] Young Americans will suffer as well: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/21/obamacares-2nd-anniversary-no-gift-for-young-americans/
[5] pay higher taxes: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/obamacare-impact-on-taxpayers
[6] businesses will face new mandates and costs: http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare
[7] investment income: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy
[8] face new limitations: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/side-effects-obamacare-may-be-fatal-for-your-hsa/
[9] purchase medical devices: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14/side-effects-obamacare-tax-will-kill-jobs-strangle-medical-device-industry/
[10] marriage is penalized: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/31/love-conquers-all%E2%80%A6except-obamacare/
[11] Sarah Torre wrote: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/22/obamacare-and-abortion-new-rules-further-burden-conscience/
[12] HHS mandate that insurance plans must cover on abortion-inducing drugs and contraception:: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/17/gimmicks-wont-resolve-hhs-mandates-religious-liberty-assault/
[13] CBS/New York Times poll: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/13/is-anti-conscience-mandate-dragging-down-obamas-approval-rating/
[14] rally in 140 locations: http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/
[Bold and italics emphasis mine]
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Thot from MikeysFunnies.com > If you set your expectations too high, you could miss the glory staring you in the face.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Obamacare’s Dreadful Anniversary
Posted By Mike Brownfield, On March 23, 2012, The Heritage Foundation
Two years ago today, President Barack Obama signed into law Obamacare, a 2,700-page bill that will radically alter America’s health care system and wreak havoc on medical costs, quality of care, and fundamental rights in ways that are beyond the scope of our imagination.
Much of what was contained in Obamacare was hatched behind closed doors where not even the slightest ray of light could find its way in. Even the men and women in Congress who were entrusted to represent the people cast their votes blindly, not knowing what lay in store. As even then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously admitted [1], “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”
The American people have already spoken, however. They want this law repealed and tossed out, as we have seen in poll after poll for the past two years. None of the activities being planned by the White House to gussy up this law will likely make a dent on the unpopularity of Obamacare.
Though even today, two years later, much of Obamacare remains to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we know some of what’s contained in the law and the ramifications for the American people. Most broadly, Obamacare rips vast powers from the hands of individual patients and their families, and it vests control in Washington bureaucrats. And the costs are far greater than the Administration claim — heading as high as $2.134 trillion with millions Americans dependent on government for their health care.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that under the President’s health care law, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits and the individual and employer penalties related to the mandates could hit $221 billion. At the time of passage, many people warned as much.
But wait, there’s more... Seniors will suffer as Obamacare robs savings from Medicare in order to fund new government spending while threatening seniors’ access to care and ending Medicare as we know it [2]. On top of that, as Heritage’s Alyene Senger writes [3], Obamacare makes extreme cuts to Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to receive their Medicare benefits through a private health care plan of their choice. And it puts a group of 15 unelected officials in charge of finding cuts in Medicare to meet new spending limits.
Young Americans will suffer as well [4]. Though the President brags that his law allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26, they ultimately will face higher premiums, perverse incentives to stay uninsured, and the burden of paying the extraordinary costs that the law brings with it.
There are even more consequences under Obamacare: families will pay higher taxes [5]; businesses will face new mandates and costs [6]; investment income [7] will get hit with new taxes, discouraging investment and harming economic growth; Americans who purchase medicine with Health Savings Account or Flexible Savings Accounts will face new limitations [8]; those who purchase medical devices [9] will face higher taxes; and marriage is penalized [10] as a result of the new subsidy scheme.
There are significant moral implications, too. Heritage’s Sarah Torre wrote [11] yesterday of news about an abortion surcharge, which follows the HHS mandate that insurance plans must cover on abortion-inducing drugs and contraception: [12]
These episodes are rapidly becoming the status quo of Obamacare implementation, with a familiar and predictable plot line: an unaccountable bureaucracy releases complicated rules on morally fraught healthcare decisions, runs roughshod over Americans’ moral concerns and personal freedom, and then tries to obscure the flaws of the legislation with accounting legerdemain and limited disclosure.
Last week, a CBS/New York Times poll [13] on the HHS mandate showed strong support for religious liberty, with 57 percent of respondents saying that religious employers should not be coerced to violate their doctrine and conscience by providing coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and contraception in their health plans, compared to 36 percent who thought they should. A sizable majority — 51 percent to 40 percent — favored a religious and moral exemption for all employers.Today at noon Americans will rally in 140 locations [14] across the country to protest Obamacare’s trampling of religious liberty. In Washington, D.C., they’ll gather right in front of HHS and demand that the moral compass for personal health decisions be pried out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats and put back in the hands of the people.
And on Monday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s controversial individual mandate, which for the first time ever forces Americans to buy a product — health care — against their will. This provision is the core of the President’s health care law, and it is a direct attack on individual liberty. Unless the Court strikes down Obamacare in its entirety, Congress must stand ready to finish the job. The American people should continue to make their voices heard, demand a repeal of Obamacare, and insist on real health care reform that increases access without forcing Americans to fall under government control.
Join Heritage in voicing your support for this cause, raise your voices against this intolerable act, take a stand to defend liberty, and sign our Repeal Obamacare petition today: https://www.facebook.com/heritagefoundation/app_172930526142342
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/23/morning-bell-obamacares-dreadful-anniversary/
URLs in this post:
[1] famously admitted: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/
[2] ending Medicare as we know it: http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2012/01/obamacare-obama-ends-medicare-as-we-know-it
[3] writes: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/19/obamacares-second-anniversary-no-gift-for-seniors/
[4] Young Americans will suffer as well: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/21/obamacares-2nd-anniversary-no-gift-for-young-americans/
[5] pay higher taxes: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/obamacare-impact-on-taxpayers
[6] businesses will face new mandates and costs: http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare
[7] investment income: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy
[8] face new limitations: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/31/side-effects-obamacare-may-be-fatal-for-your-hsa/
[9] purchase medical devices: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14/side-effects-obamacare-tax-will-kill-jobs-strangle-medical-device-industry/
[10] marriage is penalized: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/31/love-conquers-all%E2%80%A6except-obamacare/
[11] Sarah Torre wrote: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/22/obamacare-and-abortion-new-rules-further-burden-conscience/
[12] HHS mandate that insurance plans must cover on abortion-inducing drugs and contraception:: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/17/gimmicks-wont-resolve-hhs-mandates-religious-liberty-assault/
[13] CBS/New York Times poll: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/13/is-anti-conscience-mandate-dragging-down-obamas-approval-rating/
[14] rally in 140 locations: http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/
[Bold and italics emphasis mine]
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
# 190 Sunday Special (3/25) - "October Baby" - A Special Movie For Your Theatre Outing
[NOTE: The success of any movie opening is usually determined by how well it does it's opening weekend. The movie mainly discussed below, “October Baby," opened on Friday and so I share this in the hopes that you might choose to go see it this weekend or sometime in the next week. 2)As always each week, please be sure to watch this week's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms" either on television (In Orlando - Sundays at 5 pm on ch. 55.1, Mondays at 7 pm on ch. 52.2) or on the web at www.truthinaction.org and 3)Check out this week's Sunday Funny.]
------------------------------------------------------------
Stories of Life - October Baby and Doonby - Brekpoint.com Chuck Colson March 23, 2012
“Show, don’t tell.” That’s the trick good writers use to make their point. And that’s what two new films about abortion are doing.
Movies that deal with the sanctity of life are suddenly in the news. One of these, the long anticipated independent film Doonby, is scheduled to open in theaters later this year. And another one, October Baby, opens in theaters today, Friday, March 23. Both of these films delve deeply and fearlessly into an issue that the entertainment industry has rarely been brave enough to tackle.
But of course, the biggest question is, how do they handle that issue? As I’ve said more than once, Christian filmmakers must always remember that a movie needs to be a movie, not a sermon. Movies reach people not by preaching at them, but by telling stories — stories that resonate with us and move us. And that’s what these filmmakers are doing. They tell stories about people whose lives have been deeply, permanently affected by abortion. And in doing so, they remind us of the human dimension of an issue that’s too often treated as nothing more than a political football.
In October Baby, we have the story of Hannah, a college student suddenly hit with earth-shattering news. Not only is she adopted, but her biological mother had tried to abort her. Her overprotective adoptive parents had tried to shield her from the truth, but the lingering health problems caused by the procedure finally force them to tell her what happened.
The devastating news propels Hannah on a journey to learn more about her origins, but she finds out even more than she bargained for. Hannah’s cinematic story was inspired by the real-life story of Gianna Jessen. Gianna was born with cerebral palsy after a botched abortion and has become a celebrated pro-life speaker. After watching October Baby, Gianna said that watching the film was a healing experience for her. For those of us who haven’t been through anything like what Gianna has, the film is a valuable glimpse at experiences that we can hardly begin to imagine. It raises awareness of the unseen person who is always involved in an abortion, and asks us to identify with that person in a way that we never have before.
But another one of October Baby’s strengths is that it doesn’t present only a single perspective. Hannah talks with a nurse involved with her abortion. She learns about a clinic bombing that affected that nurse’s life. The film, you see, doesn’t do any demonizing; it shows the pain that surrounds this issue for everybody, from the abortion-minded mother to the adoptive parents dealing with the fallout of her decision.
As I mentioned, October Baby, which is rated PG-13 for mature themes, opens today. Come to BreakPoint.org, and we’ll link you to the movie’s website so you can see if it’s playing at a theater near you. Then go and see this strong yet sensitive depiction of the human side of abortion, and take your friends.
As October Baby and Doonby show, a good story can do so much — even more than a sermon or a lecture — to reach people and help them look at life in a whole new way.
And we Christians would do well to support films and filmmakers that do just that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
For background of how the film was made and comments from those involved, visit:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/March/October-Baby-Tale-of-an-Abortion-Survivor/
To see a trailer of the movie, visit:http://www.octoberbabymovie.net/
For a link to what theaters in your area may be showing this film, visit: http://www.octoberbabymovie.net/theaters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sunday Funny (c/o Mikey’s Funnies.com) - A mother was preparing pancakes for her sons, Kevin 5, and Ryan 3. The boys began to argue over who would get the first pancake. Their mother saw the opportunity for a moral lesson. "If Jesus were sitting here, He would say, 'Let my brother have the first pancake, I can wait.'" Kevin turned to his younger brother and said, "Ryan, you be Jesus!"
------------------------------------------------------------
Stories of Life - October Baby and Doonby - Brekpoint.com Chuck Colson March 23, 2012
“Show, don’t tell.” That’s the trick good writers use to make their point. And that’s what two new films about abortion are doing.
Movies that deal with the sanctity of life are suddenly in the news. One of these, the long anticipated independent film Doonby, is scheduled to open in theaters later this year. And another one, October Baby, opens in theaters today, Friday, March 23. Both of these films delve deeply and fearlessly into an issue that the entertainment industry has rarely been brave enough to tackle.
But of course, the biggest question is, how do they handle that issue? As I’ve said more than once, Christian filmmakers must always remember that a movie needs to be a movie, not a sermon. Movies reach people not by preaching at them, but by telling stories — stories that resonate with us and move us. And that’s what these filmmakers are doing. They tell stories about people whose lives have been deeply, permanently affected by abortion. And in doing so, they remind us of the human dimension of an issue that’s too often treated as nothing more than a political football.
In October Baby, we have the story of Hannah, a college student suddenly hit with earth-shattering news. Not only is she adopted, but her biological mother had tried to abort her. Her overprotective adoptive parents had tried to shield her from the truth, but the lingering health problems caused by the procedure finally force them to tell her what happened.
The devastating news propels Hannah on a journey to learn more about her origins, but she finds out even more than she bargained for. Hannah’s cinematic story was inspired by the real-life story of Gianna Jessen. Gianna was born with cerebral palsy after a botched abortion and has become a celebrated pro-life speaker. After watching October Baby, Gianna said that watching the film was a healing experience for her. For those of us who haven’t been through anything like what Gianna has, the film is a valuable glimpse at experiences that we can hardly begin to imagine. It raises awareness of the unseen person who is always involved in an abortion, and asks us to identify with that person in a way that we never have before.
But another one of October Baby’s strengths is that it doesn’t present only a single perspective. Hannah talks with a nurse involved with her abortion. She learns about a clinic bombing that affected that nurse’s life. The film, you see, doesn’t do any demonizing; it shows the pain that surrounds this issue for everybody, from the abortion-minded mother to the adoptive parents dealing with the fallout of her decision.
As I mentioned, October Baby, which is rated PG-13 for mature themes, opens today. Come to BreakPoint.org, and we’ll link you to the movie’s website so you can see if it’s playing at a theater near you. Then go and see this strong yet sensitive depiction of the human side of abortion, and take your friends.
As October Baby and Doonby show, a good story can do so much — even more than a sermon or a lecture — to reach people and help them look at life in a whole new way.
And we Christians would do well to support films and filmmakers that do just that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
For background of how the film was made and comments from those involved, visit:http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/March/October-Baby-Tale-of-an-Abortion-Survivor/
To see a trailer of the movie, visit:http://www.octoberbabymovie.net/
For a link to what theaters in your area may be showing this film, visit: http://www.octoberbabymovie.net/theaters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sunday Funny (c/o Mikey’s Funnies.com) - A mother was preparing pancakes for her sons, Kevin 5, and Ryan 3. The boys began to argue over who would get the first pancake. Their mother saw the opportunity for a moral lesson. "If Jesus were sitting here, He would say, 'Let my brother have the first pancake, I can wait.'" Kevin turned to his younger brother and said, "Ryan, you be Jesus!"
#189 (3/23) - The Trayvon Martin Shooting - Do We Really Want Justice "Under-Cooked?"
[Note: Lord willing, I hope to post a Sunday Special. Be sure to check back here then.]
Dear friends,
If you've been following the news the past few weeks, you have probably heard something about a 17-year old teen named Trayvon Martin who was shot by a Neighborhood Watch captain in a neighborhood here in Central Florida. What was initially a local incident seemed to overnight become a national news story with marches in New York City (!) to protest the sense that justice has not been given to the youth. It's exploded in the media (who seems to have done everything to make this story what it has become) in such a way that as I feel like my head is spinning!
I was hoping by now that someone much wiser would comment on what has happened but having not found a thing among my internet sources at this point who have said anything, I feel the need to put my thoughts to paper. Please remember that my comments are based on what I have learned up to this date - Friday, March 23rd. In subsequent days, further information may make my comments (even more?) nonsensical to some but please keep in mind this is what my views are at this time.
From what we've been told, the teen (visiting from out of town) went one recent evening to the local convenience store to buy a package of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. On his way home, he was confronted by the watch captain who ended up shooting and killing him. There is at least one witness who say the two wrestling on the ground before the boy was shot. According to one news source, "The volunteer, George Zimmerman, claimed that he felt the young man had threatened him and he was fearful of his safety. Zimmerman claimed he acted in accordance with Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, which permits the use of lethal force if a person legitimately believes his life and property, or the life of another, is in danger. Despite the fact that Martin was unarmed, Sanford police have not charged Zimmerman with any crime. This led to a growing perception that the police department and local prosecutors were dragging their heels at best. Both the current state attorney and the Sanford police chief have stepped aside. The case is now under review by the State Attorney's office and a prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott." Today, President Obama promised a full investigation (there is not one going on already?)of the killing (calling it a shooting would not be as incindiary, right?) of Trayvon Martin Friday, saying, "If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” (Say what!)
My thoughts - Of course, like you, my first thoughts on hearing about this incident was "How could this have happened?" but I felt comfortable the police would investigate this and the details would eventually come out. Because it's now been weeks since the incident, and the local media has focused on this story EVERY day, people are left with the impression that the police are not doing their job. There has even been implications made that the "slowness" of the invstigation is because of racial prejudice. It didn't help that just last night, thousands gathered for a rally where the Rev. Al Sharpton, whose known to show up whenever African-Americans are said to be facing injustice. (I have yet to hear of an instance where his participation has resulted in speeding up the justice system rather than just enflame racial tensions in any situation.)
There are several things about all of this that particularly bother me. First of all, as I heard one attorney interviewed say, it can often take the police up to a year to fully investigate an incident in order to arrest someone for a crime. That seems like a long time, but obviously the process is often not as drawn out AND the police always need to be careful that they accurately charge someone or their case will not hold up later and these days they could be sued for false arrest. I guess when you're used to watching any night on television a police drama in which a crime is solved in an hour you get the impression that such things are the norm - like picking up your dinner at a fast-food restaurant. With patience not considered a virtue by many these days, with distrust of authority being the norm among some, and with people easily stirred by emotions, what's developed is not that surprising.
Secondly, I have to wonder whatever happened to the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty." As everyone else, I have no idea whether Mr. Zimmerman acted maliciously and is guilty of a crime, much less the crime of murder as some are accusing him. Is it not possible that the police have yet to arrest him because there is - at least at this point - not enough evidence for them to press charges? Why is it presumed there is some kind of conspiracy on the part of the police to "deny Trayvon justice"? Little has been mentioned of the man and his family obviously in hiding because of death threats that have been made against him. (Ironically, I watched an episode of a police drama just last night in which a man spent 4 years in prison for a crime a neighbor and the actual perpetrator had framed him for. He had been convicted on falsified evidence that resulted not only in his losing his freedom but also his family abandoning him.) I can imagine whatever family and friends who believe him must also be terrified and intimidated to speak out in his defense.
Yes, it is scary and sad that a teen has been killed, whatever the circumstances prove to have been. Of course, my heart and my prayers go out that his family is comforted in their grief. But also scary and sad for me is that we live in a time when people can so distrust those in authority that they seem willing to abandon the rule of law to get "justice." It seems that a growing number don't want to wait for any evidence, any facts, for whatever truth can be accaurately determined because they have already made up their minds what the truth is. In their minds, Mr. Zimmerman MUST be guilty - at least that's what he appears to be, and that's good enough. If we were living in the "wild west" of the late 19th century America, they would have stormed the town jail, overwhelm the sheriff, drag the prisoner from his cell, and hanged him!
I guess that would be "justice" - street justice, that is! Thank God, it's still safe to assume that in time the truth and the rule of law will prevail. For Mr.Zimmerman's sake - and ours - let's pray people will take a deep breath and put their emotions and presumptions on hold, and let the investigative process run it's full course. After all, we all may want justice to be swift, but even a fast-food burger is not worth eating if it's under-cooked, right?
Dear friends,
If you've been following the news the past few weeks, you have probably heard something about a 17-year old teen named Trayvon Martin who was shot by a Neighborhood Watch captain in a neighborhood here in Central Florida. What was initially a local incident seemed to overnight become a national news story with marches in New York City (!) to protest the sense that justice has not been given to the youth. It's exploded in the media (who seems to have done everything to make this story what it has become) in such a way that as I feel like my head is spinning!
I was hoping by now that someone much wiser would comment on what has happened but having not found a thing among my internet sources at this point who have said anything, I feel the need to put my thoughts to paper. Please remember that my comments are based on what I have learned up to this date - Friday, March 23rd. In subsequent days, further information may make my comments (even more?) nonsensical to some but please keep in mind this is what my views are at this time.
From what we've been told, the teen (visiting from out of town) went one recent evening to the local convenience store to buy a package of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. On his way home, he was confronted by the watch captain who ended up shooting and killing him. There is at least one witness who say the two wrestling on the ground before the boy was shot. According to one news source, "The volunteer, George Zimmerman, claimed that he felt the young man had threatened him and he was fearful of his safety. Zimmerman claimed he acted in accordance with Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, which permits the use of lethal force if a person legitimately believes his life and property, or the life of another, is in danger. Despite the fact that Martin was unarmed, Sanford police have not charged Zimmerman with any crime. This led to a growing perception that the police department and local prosecutors were dragging their heels at best. Both the current state attorney and the Sanford police chief have stepped aside. The case is now under review by the State Attorney's office and a prosecutor appointed by Gov. Rick Scott." Today, President Obama promised a full investigation (there is not one going on already?)of the killing (calling it a shooting would not be as incindiary, right?) of Trayvon Martin Friday, saying, "If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” (Say what!)
My thoughts - Of course, like you, my first thoughts on hearing about this incident was "How could this have happened?" but I felt comfortable the police would investigate this and the details would eventually come out. Because it's now been weeks since the incident, and the local media has focused on this story EVERY day, people are left with the impression that the police are not doing their job. There has even been implications made that the "slowness" of the invstigation is because of racial prejudice. It didn't help that just last night, thousands gathered for a rally where the Rev. Al Sharpton, whose known to show up whenever African-Americans are said to be facing injustice. (I have yet to hear of an instance where his participation has resulted in speeding up the justice system rather than just enflame racial tensions in any situation.)
There are several things about all of this that particularly bother me. First of all, as I heard one attorney interviewed say, it can often take the police up to a year to fully investigate an incident in order to arrest someone for a crime. That seems like a long time, but obviously the process is often not as drawn out AND the police always need to be careful that they accurately charge someone or their case will not hold up later and these days they could be sued for false arrest. I guess when you're used to watching any night on television a police drama in which a crime is solved in an hour you get the impression that such things are the norm - like picking up your dinner at a fast-food restaurant. With patience not considered a virtue by many these days, with distrust of authority being the norm among some, and with people easily stirred by emotions, what's developed is not that surprising.
Secondly, I have to wonder whatever happened to the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty." As everyone else, I have no idea whether Mr. Zimmerman acted maliciously and is guilty of a crime, much less the crime of murder as some are accusing him. Is it not possible that the police have yet to arrest him because there is - at least at this point - not enough evidence for them to press charges? Why is it presumed there is some kind of conspiracy on the part of the police to "deny Trayvon justice"? Little has been mentioned of the man and his family obviously in hiding because of death threats that have been made against him. (Ironically, I watched an episode of a police drama just last night in which a man spent 4 years in prison for a crime a neighbor and the actual perpetrator had framed him for. He had been convicted on falsified evidence that resulted not only in his losing his freedom but also his family abandoning him.) I can imagine whatever family and friends who believe him must also be terrified and intimidated to speak out in his defense.
Yes, it is scary and sad that a teen has been killed, whatever the circumstances prove to have been. Of course, my heart and my prayers go out that his family is comforted in their grief. But also scary and sad for me is that we live in a time when people can so distrust those in authority that they seem willing to abandon the rule of law to get "justice." It seems that a growing number don't want to wait for any evidence, any facts, for whatever truth can be accaurately determined because they have already made up their minds what the truth is. In their minds, Mr. Zimmerman MUST be guilty - at least that's what he appears to be, and that's good enough. If we were living in the "wild west" of the late 19th century America, they would have stormed the town jail, overwhelm the sheriff, drag the prisoner from his cell, and hanged him!
I guess that would be "justice" - street justice, that is! Thank God, it's still safe to assume that in time the truth and the rule of law will prevail. For Mr.Zimmerman's sake - and ours - let's pray people will take a deep breath and put their emotions and presumptions on hold, and let the investigative process run it's full course. After all, we all may want justice to be swift, but even a fast-food burger is not worth eating if it's under-cooked, right?
#192 (3/28) - Updates on Past Blogs; "Murder in Afghanistan"
[Update on blog #191 - Thank you for your prayers regarding the Supreme Court hearing arguments on Obamacare since Monday. Today is the final day but please continue to pray as the justices deliberate on their findings and make a decision that is expected in June. Once again, this is a decision that will have a HUGE impact on our country for years and generations to come!]
[Update on blog #190 - As the uproar on the Treyvon Martin (who turns out to have not been some diminutive boy but nearly 6'2!) shooting continues, note that it is a good example of post-modernist thinking. The people caught up in the rhetoric being stirred up have already made up their mind of what the truth is (the real facts, the truth is relative to them). They are not interested in any evidence or objective facts but in what they "feel" is the truth. This was so clearly stated by a popular AA Congresswoman who said on video to a reporter, "Facts? I don't need facts!" ('Nuff said.) When people let agitators (I'm still waiting to see what Biblical wisdom rather than pure rhetoric that Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson wil share; I am certainly not holding my breath for that!) decide for them what is truth, society decsends into tyranny and chaosas people are easily led by their emotions. (Rally leaders have threatened violence and the National Black Panthers have put a bounty on the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman!) Recall the French Revolution and the race riots of the '60s and be very afraid.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Line between Good and Evil
by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, March 22, 2012
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart.” These words, penned in 1973 by then-Soviet dissident and Christian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, brilliantly sum up the human condition after the Fall.
And they explain the shocking tragedy of Staff Sargent Robert Bales, the U.S. soldier who allegedly murdered 16 Afghan civilians — women and children among them — in cold blood.
You know the story. Bales was on his fourth combat tour. He was a decorated soldier, a family man, well-liked and respected by his superiors and his neighbors. But on that fateful night, something inside Bales’s mind or soul went horribly wrong. He left his base for a nearby village, we are told, and went on a wild rampage of evil.
But how, why? Did he “snap” as we are hearing and reading about? Was the pressure of four combat tours too much? Did seeing his friend lose a leg the day before set him off? Was he indeed drinking that night?
Well, those could all be factors. But back to Solzhenitsyn: In describing the line separating evil and good in the human heart, he also had this to say: “This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.”
The tragedy in Afghanistan should remind us all that evil is real. That the biblical account of fallen human nature is true. David Brooks in the New York Times this week rightly cited G.K. Chesterton, who wrote that original sin “is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”
And it is proven, over and over, throughout history. In my book Being the Body, I tell the story of Nazi mass murderer and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann. Kidnapped in 1960 by Israeli agents, he was put on trial in Israel. One witness against him was an Auschwitz survivor named Yehiel Dinur. Dinur entered the courtroom and stared at Eichmann. Their eyes met. After a few tension-filled moments, Dinur broke down and began to shout and sob. Why? Was it the memories of Auschwitz? Was Eichmann evil incarnate? No, as Dinur explained on 60 Minutes, it was the fact that Eichmann was an ordinary man. Dinur saw so clearly that sin and evil are part of the human condition. “I was afraid about myself. I saw that I am capable to do this . . . Eichmann is in all of us.”
Justice demands that Staff Sgt. Bales be tried for his crimes. But as we soberly, mournfully ponder what happened that night in Afghanistan, we must remember that we human beings, made in God’s image though we are, are nonetheless fallen. That although we are capable of the most sublime acts of charity, goodness and beauty, we are also capable of the most outrageous acts of depravity.
And only the Christian worldview gives us the ability to see things — even human nature — as they really are. And if we cannot understand things the way they are and live our lives accordingly, then God have mercy on us all.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
[Update on blog #190 - As the uproar on the Treyvon Martin (who turns out to have not been some diminutive boy but nearly 6'2!) shooting continues, note that it is a good example of post-modernist thinking. The people caught up in the rhetoric being stirred up have already made up their mind of what the truth is (the real facts, the truth is relative to them). They are not interested in any evidence or objective facts but in what they "feel" is the truth. This was so clearly stated by a popular AA Congresswoman who said on video to a reporter, "Facts? I don't need facts!" ('Nuff said.) When people let agitators (I'm still waiting to see what Biblical wisdom rather than pure rhetoric that Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson wil share; I am certainly not holding my breath for that!) decide for them what is truth, society decsends into tyranny and chaosas people are easily led by their emotions. (Rally leaders have threatened violence and the National Black Panthers have put a bounty on the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman!) Recall the French Revolution and the race riots of the '60s and be very afraid.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Line between Good and Evil
by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, March 22, 2012
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart.” These words, penned in 1973 by then-Soviet dissident and Christian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, brilliantly sum up the human condition after the Fall.
And they explain the shocking tragedy of Staff Sargent Robert Bales, the U.S. soldier who allegedly murdered 16 Afghan civilians — women and children among them — in cold blood.
You know the story. Bales was on his fourth combat tour. He was a decorated soldier, a family man, well-liked and respected by his superiors and his neighbors. But on that fateful night, something inside Bales’s mind or soul went horribly wrong. He left his base for a nearby village, we are told, and went on a wild rampage of evil.
But how, why? Did he “snap” as we are hearing and reading about? Was the pressure of four combat tours too much? Did seeing his friend lose a leg the day before set him off? Was he indeed drinking that night?
Well, those could all be factors. But back to Solzhenitsyn: In describing the line separating evil and good in the human heart, he also had this to say: “This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.”
The tragedy in Afghanistan should remind us all that evil is real. That the biblical account of fallen human nature is true. David Brooks in the New York Times this week rightly cited G.K. Chesterton, who wrote that original sin “is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”
And it is proven, over and over, throughout history. In my book Being the Body, I tell the story of Nazi mass murderer and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann. Kidnapped in 1960 by Israeli agents, he was put on trial in Israel. One witness against him was an Auschwitz survivor named Yehiel Dinur. Dinur entered the courtroom and stared at Eichmann. Their eyes met. After a few tension-filled moments, Dinur broke down and began to shout and sob. Why? Was it the memories of Auschwitz? Was Eichmann evil incarnate? No, as Dinur explained on 60 Minutes, it was the fact that Eichmann was an ordinary man. Dinur saw so clearly that sin and evil are part of the human condition. “I was afraid about myself. I saw that I am capable to do this . . . Eichmann is in all of us.”
Justice demands that Staff Sgt. Bales be tried for his crimes. But as we soberly, mournfully ponder what happened that night in Afghanistan, we must remember that we human beings, made in God’s image though we are, are nonetheless fallen. That although we are capable of the most sublime acts of charity, goodness and beauty, we are also capable of the most outrageous acts of depravity.
And only the Christian worldview gives us the ability to see things — even human nature — as they really are. And if we cannot understand things the way they are and live our lives accordingly, then God have mercy on us all.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
#188 (3/21) - President Misleads On Rising Gas Prices
[Note: It's understandable that President Obama would want to point elsewhere for the rising gasoline prices. After all, as they've gone up, his populatrity in this election year has gone down. But his recent statements seek to do this by misleading (Of course, he wouldnt be LYING, would he?} rhetoric. Educate yourself on the facts.]
Flat-Earth Thinking on Gas Prices?
Nicolas Loris March 20, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/20/flat-earth-thinking-on-gas-prices/
President Obama blasted oil-drilling advocates last week, equating their solution for high gas prices to people who didn’t believe the Earth is round. President Obama said,"They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas-guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future; they want to be stuck in the past. We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Let me tell you something. If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round."
It’s not that we want to “keep on doing things the same way” as the President suggests. It’s that we don’t have the hubris to think using taxpayer dollars will somehow transition us to a new energy economy. We’ve heard it before, and we’ll hear it again from both Democrats and Republicans—the argument that all we need is billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded seed money and we’ll end our dependence on foreign oil. It could be wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, natural gas vehicles. Anything—apparently—BUT more domestic oil.
Many attempts to subsidize clean energy such as wind, solar, and nuclear wouldn’t even replace oil, because oil provides only about 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Oil is mostly used as a transportation fuel, but setting that aside, let’s set a few other things straight:
1) We’re not anti- energy technology. We’re against wasting taxpayer money to “invest” in those technologies, including oil and gas. If it’s a market-viable idea, using federal money is offsetting private-sector investments. If it’s not a market-viable idea, we’re artificially propping up an industry until it goes bankrupt. Either way, it’s a raw deal for taxpayers.
2) Consumers do not have an addiction to oil; they have an addiction to affordable, reliable transportation. Gasoline provides that. If there’s an alternative (biofuels, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles) that can capture part of oil’s multitrillion-dollar market and provide value to consumers, it will happen without government subsidies. Consumers will gladly power their vehicles with algae instead of oil if it’s affordable and reliable.
3) We don’t support any energy subsidies. President Obama says some are complaining about renewable subsidies but saying oil subsidies are justified. We’re not saying that. What we are saying, however, is that the $4 billion per year subsidy figure for oil and gas companies that the President constantly uses is bogus. Those tax breaks are general manufacturing tax breaks that are so broadly available that video game manufacturers get them. The others come in forms of accelerated depreciation schedules, which are also broadly available. We should get rid of all subsidies and allow all companies to deduct expenses in the year they are incurred to encourage new investment, but the President needs to be honest with the American people about the meaning of a subsidy.
4) The President’s thinking on gas prices doesn’t reflect Flat Earth thinking; it reflects the Malthusian/imminent resource exhaustion mentality used to promote policy agendas. Three decades ago, proven world oil reserves were 645 billion barrels; five years ago, they were 1.28 trillion, and in 2009, they were 1.34 trillion. Innovative technologies will allow producers to discover and recover more oil, if we have access to it. If the price of oil goes up because we’re running out, alternative sources of transportation will become more competitive. But that process shouldn’t driven by restrictions on access to oil and regulations that make it unnecessarily difficult to drill.
5) The President is misusing statistics. President Obama says drilling is the highest it’s been in eight years, which is good, but it’s a result of increased production on private lands. Production on federal lands and offshore fell from 2010 to 2011. He says we only have 2 percent of the world’s proven reserves but consume 20 percent. But we consume 20 percent of the world’s production (a result of income and economic growth), not the world’s reserves. As the Institute for Energy Research points out, our proven reserves of 20 billion barrels were the same in 1944 as they were in 2010, yet we produced 167 billion barrels during that time as technologies improved. The amount of technologically recoverable oil is closer to 1.4 trillion barrels, though much of that is off limits.
It would be unfair and disingenuous to lay all blame for high gasoline prices at the President’s doorstep. But his energy speeches continue to mislead the American public, and that is completely his fault.
[Bold and italics emphasis mine]
Flat-Earth Thinking on Gas Prices?
Nicolas Loris March 20, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/20/flat-earth-thinking-on-gas-prices/
President Obama blasted oil-drilling advocates last week, equating their solution for high gas prices to people who didn’t believe the Earth is round. President Obama said,"They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas-guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future; they want to be stuck in the past. We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Let me tell you something. If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society. They would not have believed that the world was round."
It’s not that we want to “keep on doing things the same way” as the President suggests. It’s that we don’t have the hubris to think using taxpayer dollars will somehow transition us to a new energy economy. We’ve heard it before, and we’ll hear it again from both Democrats and Republicans—the argument that all we need is billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded seed money and we’ll end our dependence on foreign oil. It could be wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, natural gas vehicles. Anything—apparently—BUT more domestic oil.
Many attempts to subsidize clean energy such as wind, solar, and nuclear wouldn’t even replace oil, because oil provides only about 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Oil is mostly used as a transportation fuel, but setting that aside, let’s set a few other things straight:
1) We’re not anti- energy technology. We’re against wasting taxpayer money to “invest” in those technologies, including oil and gas. If it’s a market-viable idea, using federal money is offsetting private-sector investments. If it’s not a market-viable idea, we’re artificially propping up an industry until it goes bankrupt. Either way, it’s a raw deal for taxpayers.
2) Consumers do not have an addiction to oil; they have an addiction to affordable, reliable transportation. Gasoline provides that. If there’s an alternative (biofuels, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles) that can capture part of oil’s multitrillion-dollar market and provide value to consumers, it will happen without government subsidies. Consumers will gladly power their vehicles with algae instead of oil if it’s affordable and reliable.
3) We don’t support any energy subsidies. President Obama says some are complaining about renewable subsidies but saying oil subsidies are justified. We’re not saying that. What we are saying, however, is that the $4 billion per year subsidy figure for oil and gas companies that the President constantly uses is bogus. Those tax breaks are general manufacturing tax breaks that are so broadly available that video game manufacturers get them. The others come in forms of accelerated depreciation schedules, which are also broadly available. We should get rid of all subsidies and allow all companies to deduct expenses in the year they are incurred to encourage new investment, but the President needs to be honest with the American people about the meaning of a subsidy.
4) The President’s thinking on gas prices doesn’t reflect Flat Earth thinking; it reflects the Malthusian/imminent resource exhaustion mentality used to promote policy agendas. Three decades ago, proven world oil reserves were 645 billion barrels; five years ago, they were 1.28 trillion, and in 2009, they were 1.34 trillion. Innovative technologies will allow producers to discover and recover more oil, if we have access to it. If the price of oil goes up because we’re running out, alternative sources of transportation will become more competitive. But that process shouldn’t driven by restrictions on access to oil and regulations that make it unnecessarily difficult to drill.
5) The President is misusing statistics. President Obama says drilling is the highest it’s been in eight years, which is good, but it’s a result of increased production on private lands. Production on federal lands and offshore fell from 2010 to 2011. He says we only have 2 percent of the world’s proven reserves but consume 20 percent. But we consume 20 percent of the world’s production (a result of income and economic growth), not the world’s reserves. As the Institute for Energy Research points out, our proven reserves of 20 billion barrels were the same in 1944 as they were in 2010, yet we produced 167 billion barrels during that time as technologies improved. The amount of technologically recoverable oil is closer to 1.4 trillion barrels, though much of that is off limits.
It would be unfair and disingenuous to lay all blame for high gasoline prices at the President’s doorstep. But his energy speeches continue to mislead the American public, and that is completely his fault.
[Bold and italics emphasis mine]
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
[scroll below for #187 (3/11) Sunday Special - "His Legacy Lives On"] #186 (3/9) - No, It's NOT About Denying Women Contraception!
[Dear friends, Have you been confused by the media recently making it sound as if Republicans and specifically conservatives in Congress and elsewhere are somehow fighting a woman's right to contraception?!! iAre you wondering, "Where did this come from?" Well, as the article below (and the 2 others that follow - one of which includes a petiton you can sign to add your voice on this issue - as well as dozens besides I could also post)indicate, this has been nothing more than a biased media creating a smokescreen for what is really going on - as you know, nothing new these days. All of this is just a reminder that we really have to be questioning just how the media we view is framing the news and why they report what stories they do.]
The Leading Edge of Tyranny: A Shameful DebateBy: Chuck Colson, Breakpoint: March 5, 2012
We are witnessing a crime being committed before our very eyes. The Senate has desecrated the Bill of Rights.
Last Thursday, the Senate rejected by a 51-48 vote a bill that would have permitted religious employers to refuse to cover medical services that violated their moral and religious convictions. Have they even read the Bill of Rights?
Now strange things happen when issues are politicized, I know that. That’s not shocking. What is shocking — and downright shameful — is the deceitful way supporters of the Administration’s mandate have framed the issue.
They say this is all about protecting women’s access to contraception. This is, folks, the biggest red herring I’ve seen in politics. It’s garbage, and they know it. Shame on them. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t have access to contraceptives. Any woman can go to virtually any drug store and purchase them. Even drugs that induce abortion. As I told you last week, these things are even available in vending machines now!
How dare Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington say that this is about “curtailing rights to access that women already have"! That’s a bold-faced misrepresentation of what’s going on here, and she and her colleagues know it.
The media is no better. The New York Times opined that the measure would have “crippled the expansion of preventive health care in America.” What hogwash! And the Times is even furthering the lie that pregnancy is akin to tuberculosis: a disease that needs to be prevented. Then the Times went on to accuse the Republicans of a relentless effort to “deny women access to essential health services.” Give me a break!
Even worse, this intentional and vicious misinformation campaign is working. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds that 63% of Americans support requiring insurers to cover contraception, while 33% oppose.
How sad is it the American public is so easily duped.
Folks, women’s access to contraception is not the issue here. They have it. In spades. What’s really going on is that the Obama Administration wants women to have access to FREE contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. It’s an ideological imperative for them. And such niceties as the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom just don’t matter in comparison.
Where does this end? I’m an 80-year-old man who has to take aspirin for his heart. Should the government pay for the aspirin I need? If they don’t pay for it, would they be denying my access to aspirin? Come on.
If the Obama Administration has the votes to mandate free contraception, well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. But the Administration and its allies do not have the right to violate the First Amendment — to force religious organizations to pay for procedures or drugs that violate the tenets of their faith.That’s why we have the Bill of Rights: to protect our fundamental freedoms. As Senator Orrin Hatch said, “When we start going down this road, beware. . . That's when tyranny really begins. Those of you who vote against this amendment are playing with fire." He’s right.
Folks, tell your friends, your neighbors, and your legislators that women already have complete access to contraception — and to say otherwise nothing is a deliberate misrepresentation of what’s going on.
Make no mistake: What we are witnessing is indeed the leading edge of tyranny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following synopsis of the issue below includes a chance for you to sign a petition to voice your opposition to what is going on. You will note a link to it near the end of this article. I hope you'll add your name to it as I have.]
Grass Rooots Nation: alert@grassrootsnation.com March 5, 2012
This spin is nothing more than a left-wing media lie. The real issue at stake is much more fundamental than the specific procedures that have dominated the debate. The real question is, can government require citizens and companies to provide and pay for government mandates that violate their conscience and deeply-held beliefs?
Obama says, "YES!" the statist government can override the deeply-held beliefs of ctizens and their organizations. Harry Reid says, "YES!" The leftist media says, "YES!" And now we face a fundamental and direct assault on the liberties of every American.
Consider what will happen if Obama's violation of our constitutional rights of conscience is allowed to stand:
+ + Faith-Based Hospitals, Universities And Social Service Agencies Will Shut Their Doors.
This may sound extreme, but leaders in the Catholic church are already warning that Obama's mandate will cause Catholic hospitals and unversities to shut down rather than pay for the violation of their rights of conscience. Cardinal Francis George, who resides in Chicago, said the mandate means:
This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations.... Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education?
Since religious organizations provide a significant percentage of all health care services (Catholic hospitals alone account for 20% of hospital beds) this could impact millions of jobs and the health care services for tens of millions of Americans.
+ + Business Owners Will Be Forced To Fund Any Health Procedure Obama's Team Decides Must Be Covered
The ObamaCare law leaves the ultimate decision making on what health services must be carried and covered to government bureaucrats. Millions of Christian business owners will be forced by Obama to offer and pay for services which violate their First Amendment religious liberties.
+ + Employees Will See Their Rights Trampled
Employees who do not support certain health services because of moral or religious reasons will be forced through co-pays and insurance cost sharing to fund these services.
+ + Pandora's Box Is Opened
Beyond ObamaCare and these HHS Mandates, this gross violation of our rights opens up "Pandora's Box" for statist government leaders to, at their discretion, overrun the constitutional rights of citizens.
The fact is, these HHS Mandates are the inevitable result of the unconstitutional ObamaCare law and a statist regime that does not respect our fundamental liberties. And it's just the beginning.
That's why Grassfire Nation is launching this citizen "Petition In Defense Of Rights Of Conscience." This petition supports efforts to reverse the ObamaCare HHS mandates. More fundamentally, this petition opposes any effort by statist government leaders to violate our rights of conscience. Please go here to read the petition and sign:
http://www.grassfire.com/214/petition.asp
Even though Harry Reid's Senate struck down the "Rights Of Conscience" provision, this battle is far from over. The next major action is expected in the House, where similar language to the Blunt amendment will likely come up for a vote later this month... Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation
------------------------------------------------
Religious Liberty Under AttackMike Brownfield, The Heritage Foundation; February 22, 2012
ttp://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/
The Leading Edge of Tyranny: A Shameful DebateBy: Chuck Colson, Breakpoint: March 5, 2012
We are witnessing a crime being committed before our very eyes. The Senate has desecrated the Bill of Rights.
Last Thursday, the Senate rejected by a 51-48 vote a bill that would have permitted religious employers to refuse to cover medical services that violated their moral and religious convictions. Have they even read the Bill of Rights?
Now strange things happen when issues are politicized, I know that. That’s not shocking. What is shocking — and downright shameful — is the deceitful way supporters of the Administration’s mandate have framed the issue.
They say this is all about protecting women’s access to contraception. This is, folks, the biggest red herring I’ve seen in politics. It’s garbage, and they know it. Shame on them. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t have access to contraceptives. Any woman can go to virtually any drug store and purchase them. Even drugs that induce abortion. As I told you last week, these things are even available in vending machines now!
How dare Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington say that this is about “curtailing rights to access that women already have"! That’s a bold-faced misrepresentation of what’s going on here, and she and her colleagues know it.
The media is no better. The New York Times opined that the measure would have “crippled the expansion of preventive health care in America.” What hogwash! And the Times is even furthering the lie that pregnancy is akin to tuberculosis: a disease that needs to be prevented. Then the Times went on to accuse the Republicans of a relentless effort to “deny women access to essential health services.” Give me a break!
Even worse, this intentional and vicious misinformation campaign is working. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds that 63% of Americans support requiring insurers to cover contraception, while 33% oppose.
How sad is it the American public is so easily duped.
Folks, women’s access to contraception is not the issue here. They have it. In spades. What’s really going on is that the Obama Administration wants women to have access to FREE contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. It’s an ideological imperative for them. And such niceties as the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom just don’t matter in comparison.
Where does this end? I’m an 80-year-old man who has to take aspirin for his heart. Should the government pay for the aspirin I need? If they don’t pay for it, would they be denying my access to aspirin? Come on.
If the Obama Administration has the votes to mandate free contraception, well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. But the Administration and its allies do not have the right to violate the First Amendment — to force religious organizations to pay for procedures or drugs that violate the tenets of their faith.That’s why we have the Bill of Rights: to protect our fundamental freedoms. As Senator Orrin Hatch said, “When we start going down this road, beware. . . That's when tyranny really begins. Those of you who vote against this amendment are playing with fire." He’s right.
Folks, tell your friends, your neighbors, and your legislators that women already have complete access to contraception — and to say otherwise nothing is a deliberate misrepresentation of what’s going on.
Make no mistake: What we are witnessing is indeed the leading edge of tyranny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following synopsis of the issue below includes a chance for you to sign a petition to voice your opposition to what is going on. You will note a link to it near the end of this article. I hope you'll add your name to it as I have.]
Grass Rooots Nation: alert@grassrootsnation.com March 5, 2012
This spin is nothing more than a left-wing media lie. The real issue at stake is much more fundamental than the specific procedures that have dominated the debate. The real question is, can government require citizens and companies to provide and pay for government mandates that violate their conscience and deeply-held beliefs?
Obama says, "YES!" the statist government can override the deeply-held beliefs of ctizens and their organizations. Harry Reid says, "YES!" The leftist media says, "YES!" And now we face a fundamental and direct assault on the liberties of every American.
Consider what will happen if Obama's violation of our constitutional rights of conscience is allowed to stand:
+ + Faith-Based Hospitals, Universities And Social Service Agencies Will Shut Their Doors.
This may sound extreme, but leaders in the Catholic church are already warning that Obama's mandate will cause Catholic hospitals and unversities to shut down rather than pay for the violation of their rights of conscience. Cardinal Francis George, who resides in Chicago, said the mandate means:
This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations.... Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education?
Since religious organizations provide a significant percentage of all health care services (Catholic hospitals alone account for 20% of hospital beds) this could impact millions of jobs and the health care services for tens of millions of Americans.
+ + Business Owners Will Be Forced To Fund Any Health Procedure Obama's Team Decides Must Be Covered
The ObamaCare law leaves the ultimate decision making on what health services must be carried and covered to government bureaucrats. Millions of Christian business owners will be forced by Obama to offer and pay for services which violate their First Amendment religious liberties.
+ + Employees Will See Their Rights Trampled
Employees who do not support certain health services because of moral or religious reasons will be forced through co-pays and insurance cost sharing to fund these services.
+ + Pandora's Box Is Opened
Beyond ObamaCare and these HHS Mandates, this gross violation of our rights opens up "Pandora's Box" for statist government leaders to, at their discretion, overrun the constitutional rights of citizens.
The fact is, these HHS Mandates are the inevitable result of the unconstitutional ObamaCare law and a statist regime that does not respect our fundamental liberties. And it's just the beginning.
That's why Grassfire Nation is launching this citizen "Petition In Defense Of Rights Of Conscience." This petition supports efforts to reverse the ObamaCare HHS mandates. More fundamentally, this petition opposes any effort by statist government leaders to violate our rights of conscience. Please go here to read the petition and sign:
http://www.grassfire.com/214/petition.asp
Even though Harry Reid's Senate struck down the "Rights Of Conscience" provision, this battle is far from over. The next major action is expected in the House, where similar language to the Blunt amendment will likely come up for a vote later this month... Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation
------------------------------------------------
Religious Liberty Under AttackMike Brownfield, The Heritage Foundation; February 22, 2012
ttp://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/
#185 (3/7) - Press Conference Leaves Many Questions Unanswered
Posted By Mike Brownfield On March 7, 2012 [note my comments inserted in brackets]
Yesterday, President Barack Obama ended his months-long press conference drought and faced the White House press corps. Unfortunately for the American people, questions on some of the biggest issues facing the country remain unanswered.
The 100-ton elephant in the room that wasn’t discussed? The economy. Though the President would like to revel in the country’s recent spate of moderate economic growth, all is not well in America. More than 8 percent of Americans remain unemployed — nearly 13 million in total. What’s more, only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force — the lowest amount since 1983. New jobs are being created, but not nearly enough. The current economic recovery is the slowest recovery in the post-war era [1]. And four years after the recession started, the economy still has not replaced the jobs lost in the downturn.
So given this economic backdrop, one might think the President would be asked what he plans to do to spur growth, or three years after his much-vaunted stimulus, why is the recovery so slow? Another key question: The President once stated [2] that raising taxes is anathema to economic recovery, and yesterday credited lower taxes on the middle class for economic growth. But he is still proposing raising taxes by two trillion dollars [3]. How will massive tax hikes on job creators spur job growth, if helping Americans get back to work is his goal? If you wanted to hear those questions on the economy answered, you were sorely disappointed.
On a related subject, America passed a significant milestone since the President’s last press conference. It has now been well over 1,000 days since the Senate passed a budget, and meanwhile, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the President will not offer a plan to reform unsustainable entitlement programs. What does the President plan to do about it? The subject was not raised yesterday.
Fox News’ Ed Henry did raise an important question on the President’s position on gas prices — one of the ten questions [4] that Heritage hoped Obama would be made to answer.
Henry asked, “Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before, that will wean the American people off fossil fuels, onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?” While not denying that rising oil prices supports his long-term energy agenda, the President cited electoral politics as a reason he wouldn’t want gas prices to go higher this year [And so, he is being guided by what will get him elected, not what is best for the country ... hmm], and claimed there’s “no silver bullet” to solve the problem. What the President didn’t address, though, is his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline, the regulatory hurdles to more drilling and refining in the United States, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s insistence that it’s not his job to make gas prices more affordable.
A significant portion of the press conference yesterday was devoted to the issue of Iran and the United States’ relationship with Israel — certainly an important issue given Iran’s desperate pursuit of nuclear weapons. There were vital specifics on the issue he was not pressed on [again, because this is an election year? ... hmm]. Namely, does he regret his Administration’s hands-off approach to the Iranian Green Revolution? How can he answer for three years of failed efforts to engage with the likes of Syria and Iran, given that both are continuing to flout the international community? Why,if the President is a friend to Israel, is he pressing America’s ally to negotiate with a Palestinian authority that tolerates Hamas — a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel? And why, given these significant threats in the Middle East — and indeed around the world — is the President slashing military spending and undermining America’s ability to defend itself?
The final seminal issue that totally fell by the wayside was Obamacare’s assault on religious freedom. Under the President’s health care law, the White House mandates that virtually all religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception — including abortion-inducing drugs — thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. Though the issue was discussed in the context of political rhetoric, the underlying question that brought this debate to the fore was ignored: Where in the Constitution does the President find the authority to issue a mandate that violates the conscience of religious organizations?
These are all vital questions that have vast implications for America’s fiscal future, its national security, and the very integrity of the rights protected under the Constitution. They are fundamental questions of the role of the federal government, the President’s ability to offer solutions to the country’s crushing fiscal crisis, and his willingness to stand by our allies in defense of their right to exist. Unfortunately, America must wait for these questions to be answered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/morning-bell-press-conference-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/ URLs in this post:
[1] slowest recovery in the post-war era: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/delayed-recovery-historically-slow
[2] stated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8glbYVk3WSo
[3] two trillion dollars: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/02/morning-bell-obamas-hidden-tax-hikes/
[4] one of the ten questions: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/05/ten-questions-obama-should-be-asked-at-tuesdays-press-conference/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are a list of 10 questions that the Heritage Foundation asked before the press conference that it considered important for the President to be asked:
1.Your Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it is not the policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
2.Your administration has touted the declining unemployment rate. Do you plan any policy proposals to deal with the steady – and ongoing – decline in labor force participation?
3.According to The Heritage Foundation, there are over $2 trillion in tax hikes in your latest budget proposal, when you yourself stated that raising taxes is anathema to economic recovery. How will tax hikes spur job growth, or is that secondary to some other policy goal?
4.Your Justice Department insisted the Senate was in recess over the holidays for the purposes of recess appointments. But the Senate passed the payroll tax cut extension during that period. Do you think Presidents should dictate when Congress is in session, were these appointments legitimate, and will you go around Congress on future travel weekends?
5.What provision of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to require religiously-affiliated groups to pay for contraception in violation of their own moral teachings?
6.Does China’s decision to boost its defense budget by more than 11% give you any pause about repeatedly slashing our own military capabilities?
7.Do you regret your administration’s hands-off approach to the Iranian Green Revolution given the country’s increasing belligerence and its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons?
8.Your administration has no plan to reform unsustainable entitlement programs, according to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Why haven’t you proposed any real solutions?
9.You continue to tout an “all of the above” approach to energy policy, but your budget proposal singles out the oil industry for punitive tax hikes, while preserving preferential tax treatment for wind energy, despite the fact that wind energy companies get roughly 100 times the amount in subsidies that oil companies do per kilowatt-hour (and that’s using the administration’s dodgy accounting. A more accurate measure puts wind subsidies at about 1000 times the level of oil subsidies). Do you believe the playing field should be leveled by eliminating all energy subsidies, or should government continue trying to pick winners and losers?
10.Have you instructed Attorney General Holder to comply with the congressional subpoena related to the more than 60,000 documents that the Department of Justice has not turned over to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?
Note: this post has been revised to reflect the fact that wind subsidies are about 1000 times greater than oil subsidies, not the 100 times initially reported.
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved
Yesterday, President Barack Obama ended his months-long press conference drought and faced the White House press corps. Unfortunately for the American people, questions on some of the biggest issues facing the country remain unanswered.
The 100-ton elephant in the room that wasn’t discussed? The economy. Though the President would like to revel in the country’s recent spate of moderate economic growth, all is not well in America. More than 8 percent of Americans remain unemployed — nearly 13 million in total. What’s more, only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force — the lowest amount since 1983. New jobs are being created, but not nearly enough. The current economic recovery is the slowest recovery in the post-war era [1]. And four years after the recession started, the economy still has not replaced the jobs lost in the downturn.
So given this economic backdrop, one might think the President would be asked what he plans to do to spur growth, or three years after his much-vaunted stimulus, why is the recovery so slow? Another key question: The President once stated [2] that raising taxes is anathema to economic recovery, and yesterday credited lower taxes on the middle class for economic growth. But he is still proposing raising taxes by two trillion dollars [3]. How will massive tax hikes on job creators spur job growth, if helping Americans get back to work is his goal? If you wanted to hear those questions on the economy answered, you were sorely disappointed.
On a related subject, America passed a significant milestone since the President’s last press conference. It has now been well over 1,000 days since the Senate passed a budget, and meanwhile, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the President will not offer a plan to reform unsustainable entitlement programs. What does the President plan to do about it? The subject was not raised yesterday.
Fox News’ Ed Henry did raise an important question on the President’s position on gas prices — one of the ten questions [4] that Heritage hoped Obama would be made to answer.
Henry asked, “Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before, that will wean the American people off fossil fuels, onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?” While not denying that rising oil prices supports his long-term energy agenda, the President cited electoral politics as a reason he wouldn’t want gas prices to go higher this year [And so, he is being guided by what will get him elected, not what is best for the country ... hmm], and claimed there’s “no silver bullet” to solve the problem. What the President didn’t address, though, is his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline, the regulatory hurdles to more drilling and refining in the United States, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s insistence that it’s not his job to make gas prices more affordable.
A significant portion of the press conference yesterday was devoted to the issue of Iran and the United States’ relationship with Israel — certainly an important issue given Iran’s desperate pursuit of nuclear weapons. There were vital specifics on the issue he was not pressed on [again, because this is an election year? ... hmm]. Namely, does he regret his Administration’s hands-off approach to the Iranian Green Revolution? How can he answer for three years of failed efforts to engage with the likes of Syria and Iran, given that both are continuing to flout the international community? Why,if the President is a friend to Israel, is he pressing America’s ally to negotiate with a Palestinian authority that tolerates Hamas — a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel? And why, given these significant threats in the Middle East — and indeed around the world — is the President slashing military spending and undermining America’s ability to defend itself?
The final seminal issue that totally fell by the wayside was Obamacare’s assault on religious freedom. Under the President’s health care law, the White House mandates that virtually all religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception — including abortion-inducing drugs — thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. Though the issue was discussed in the context of political rhetoric, the underlying question that brought this debate to the fore was ignored: Where in the Constitution does the President find the authority to issue a mandate that violates the conscience of religious organizations?
These are all vital questions that have vast implications for America’s fiscal future, its national security, and the very integrity of the rights protected under the Constitution. They are fundamental questions of the role of the federal government, the President’s ability to offer solutions to the country’s crushing fiscal crisis, and his willingness to stand by our allies in defense of their right to exist. Unfortunately, America must wait for these questions to be answered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/morning-bell-press-conference-leaves-many-questions-unanswered/ URLs in this post:
[1] slowest recovery in the post-war era: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/delayed-recovery-historically-slow
[2] stated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8glbYVk3WSo
[3] two trillion dollars: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/02/morning-bell-obamas-hidden-tax-hikes/
[4] one of the ten questions: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/05/ten-questions-obama-should-be-asked-at-tuesdays-press-conference/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are a list of 10 questions that the Heritage Foundation asked before the press conference that it considered important for the President to be asked:
1.Your Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it is not the policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
2.Your administration has touted the declining unemployment rate. Do you plan any policy proposals to deal with the steady – and ongoing – decline in labor force participation?
3.According to The Heritage Foundation, there are over $2 trillion in tax hikes in your latest budget proposal, when you yourself stated that raising taxes is anathema to economic recovery. How will tax hikes spur job growth, or is that secondary to some other policy goal?
4.Your Justice Department insisted the Senate was in recess over the holidays for the purposes of recess appointments. But the Senate passed the payroll tax cut extension during that period. Do you think Presidents should dictate when Congress is in session, were these appointments legitimate, and will you go around Congress on future travel weekends?
5.What provision of the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to require religiously-affiliated groups to pay for contraception in violation of their own moral teachings?
6.Does China’s decision to boost its defense budget by more than 11% give you any pause about repeatedly slashing our own military capabilities?
7.Do you regret your administration’s hands-off approach to the Iranian Green Revolution given the country’s increasing belligerence and its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons?
8.Your administration has no plan to reform unsustainable entitlement programs, according to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Why haven’t you proposed any real solutions?
9.You continue to tout an “all of the above” approach to energy policy, but your budget proposal singles out the oil industry for punitive tax hikes, while preserving preferential tax treatment for wind energy, despite the fact that wind energy companies get roughly 100 times the amount in subsidies that oil companies do per kilowatt-hour (and that’s using the administration’s dodgy accounting. A more accurate measure puts wind subsidies at about 1000 times the level of oil subsidies). Do you believe the playing field should be leveled by eliminating all energy subsidies, or should government continue trying to pick winners and losers?
10.Have you instructed Attorney General Holder to comply with the congressional subpoena related to the more than 60,000 documents that the Department of Justice has not turned over to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?
Note: this post has been revised to reflect the fact that wind subsidies are about 1000 times greater than oil subsidies, not the 100 times initially reported.
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
