Thursday, March 31, 2016

# 1545 (3/31) "Snub Hub: Intolerant Libs Try to Blacklist N.C."

"SNUB HUB: INTOLERANT LIBS TRY TO BLACKLIST N.C."Tony Perkins,Washington Update, March 29, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16C34&f=WU16C12

North Carolina's policy may be settled -- but the dust certainly hasn't. After having their way with political squishes like Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal (R), liberals are beside themselves with Governor Pat McCrory's decision to listen to the voters of his state and repeal Charlotte's hugely unpopular bathroom bill. Big Business is hyperventilating, out-of-state leaders are boycotting, and the ACLU is suing. But does North Carolina regret its decision? Not one bit. Unlike Georgia, McCrory knows the best way to silence a bully is ignore it. [Let's be praying for Gov. McCory to be encouraged and affirmed by his constituents for taking a courageous stand.]

While Georgia tried to appease the unappeasable, North Carolina set aside the hysteria and did what was in the best interest of the people and children of the state. Seven or eight years ago, most Americans would have been appalled at the idea of letting grown men into girls' restrooms. Now, after two terms of this radical president, liberals are banning travel to a state because they won't allow it. Honestly, it's almost baffling that this is where we are as a nation. The governor of New York and mayor of San Francisco are so adamant about allowing men to shower with our daughters that they're forbidding "non-essential travel" to the state of North Carolina to promote it!

Isn't it interesting how intolerant people are? Christians aren't outlawing trips to Georgia because the governor trampled on their religious liberty. Yet entire companies are threatening to pull out of the state because Governor McCrory refused to risk the safety of his entire state for less than one half of one percent of the country's population. And, it turns out, he may have done more to protect the people who identify as transgendered more than most liberals have. Just this week, a transgendered woman was raped in one of these new unisex bathrooms -- at an LGBT landmark no less. At the Stonewall Inn in New York City, the liberals' monument to "tolerance," one of their own was attacked. Even here, at this bastion of sexual confusion, these policies are hurting the people they were designed to "help!"

So when organizations like the NCAA are blasted for staying on the sidelines in fights like Houston's, maybe they've already learned a lesson we should be teaching corporate America: neutrality is the best policy. When the Final Four tips off in Space City, it will be because college basketball decided to listen to voters. After a similar bathroom bill lost in a landslide in November, the NCAA realized that while it could roll governors like Indiana's Mike Pence (R), voters like Texas's were too much for them. Now, the organization is the target of liberals who can't understand why college basketball won't join in their sexually confused crusade. "We wanted them to make a statement before the election..." the president of Texas's ACLU complained, "and we didn't get it." That's because Houston had already made a statement -- sending the measure down in flames.

Still, governors like Louisiana's John Bel Edwards (D), the same man who spoke to an annual gathering of pastors last week about the importance of prayer and faith, has pledged to roll back the religious liberty of those same pastors in an executive order that was adopted last year by former governor Bobby Jindal. Now churches could lose their tax exemption, businessmen and women of faith can be fined, religious groups that help homeless people or drug addicts can be denied funding -- all because they don't believe in same-sex marriage and gender by self-determination. Yet ironically, these are the same people who've expressed the most concern for children. Unlike the White House, they don't believe that the compassionate response is trapping teenagers in this sexual confusion.

"Like so many others across the country," Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, "we are concerned about the potential harmful impact of [North Carolina's] law, especially on transgender youth, and believe it is mean-spirited and sends the wrong message." Mean-spirited? According to the American College of Pediatricians, the Left's agenda is child abuse! The harms of this gender ideology, which the ACP lays out here in its statement of opposition, can destroy a person for life. What sends the wrong message are policies that try to keep children frozen in this fleeting phase of uncertainty. A full 98% of gender-confused boys and 88% of gender-confused girls "eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty." Yet here we are, as a nation, holding states hostage for recognizing what science already has: that political correctness is hazardous to your health and to the health of millions of young people.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

# 1544 (3/30) "The NFL, the NBA, and Big Bucks - OUR FREEDOM VS. CORPORATE PRESSURE"

"The NFL, the NBA, and Big Bucks - OUR FREEDOM VS. CORPORATE PRESSURE" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: March 29, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29075 [AS I SEE IT: I'd encourage you to esp. check out the article below "They're Just Not Into Us." It's quite sobering. Not that many years ago, the  laws under siege would be deemed common sense and not religious freedom laws. How our culture has just gone insane! Also, you'd wish that as far as these corporate suck-ups are concerned, there was something we Christians could do to exert pressure as consumers of their products. Of  course, I unfortunately just don't see enough Christians boycotting these corporate products to make a real difference. Short of  electing government officials with backbone, are we just too much a part of the culture that's been created to be able to exert real pressure? Maybe it's time each Christian asks what he/she  is willing to do to make a stand.  - Stan]
daily_commentary_03_29_16
The NFL and the NBA are tackling issues having nothing to do with football or basketball, and they’re putting a full court press on our freedom.

Last week, North Carolina lawmakers—led by the Lt. Governor and [the] leader of the state [H]ouse, ran a backdoor play of sorts to overturn a new Charlotte ordinance known as “the bathroom bill.” As you can probably guess, the bill mandated that Charlotte businesses allow individuals access to the restroom of their choice. In a specially called session, lawmakers not only overturned Charlotte’s ordinance, they mandated that any public multiple occupancy restrooms and changing rooms in the state be designated for those of the same biological sex, while also allowing accommodation for transgender persons in single-occupancy facilities.

In just about any other time or age than ours, bathroom policies would be an unnecessary area for government involvement. And this particular bathroom policy would seem like common sense for the protection of women and children. And yet it was quickly labeled “anti-LGBT legislation.”

Among those using that nomenclature is the National Basketball Association. On Thursday, the league announced they may reconsider hosting 2017 All-Star Weekend activities in Charlotte, because of their commitment to “equality and mutual respect.” They apparently missed the irony in taking this moral stand, given that the NBA and WNBA are separate leagues, but Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation didn’t, observing on Twitter: “Hey @NBA, you’re against bathrooms based on biology, but think basketball should be?”

Well, inconsistent or not, the financial leverage that the NBA is threatening is significant. And they aren’t the only professional sports league ratcheting up the pressure. Georgia lawmakers recently passed a bill that, in the words of the Washington Post, “protects pastors from being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and individuals from being forced to attend such events.” HB 757 also, “allows faith-based organizations to deny use of their facilities for any event they find ‘objectionable’ and exempts them from having to hire or retain any employee whose religious beliefs or practices differ.”

The problem for these lawmakers is that Atlanta is in the running to host a future Super Bowl, and a strange alliance of LGBT advocates, NFL officials, and corporate bigwigs have teamed up to sack the religious liberty legislation. “NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness,” reads a statement released by league officials, “and . . . [w]hether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors . . . to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites.”

Walking lockstep, Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who’s sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into a brand new stadium to attract the big game, says, “House Bill 757 would have long-lasting negative impact on our state and the people of Georgia.” What kind of impact? Well, Disney threatened to stop making films in Georgia and the CEO of Salesforce threatened not to have programs there.

On Monday, while assuring us he was not caving to the financial pressure, Republican Governor Nathan Deal caved to the financial pressure and announced that he would veto House Bill 757. In doing so, Deal joins another Republican governor, Jan Brewer of Arizona, who caved to the NFL’s threats a few years back. “To paraphrase Joshua,” my colleague Roberto Rivera wrote recently, “the leaders of state and local governments … when asked to ‘choose this day whom you will serve,’ have answered ‘Sports! Money!’ and not in that order.”

So what does this all tell us?  That culture matters. And business and sport is part of culture, and clearly in these cases are shaping our political landscapes. Our current comfort level with culture is being challenged, to say the least.

We need courageous, clear-thinking Christians who will make the right call when called upon.

[bold, italics and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - As believers we're to stand for truth and righteousness, whether that stand is unpopular, financially unfavorable, or politically incorrect. Continue to pray that as individuals and as a community we will have wisdom and strength to do what is right and good, no matter the cost. [Again, please esp. note the article by Roberto Rivera listed below.] 

RESOURCES
"Corporatism and Gay Marriage: Natural Bedfellows" - Patrick J. Deneen | The American Conservative | January 29, 2014; http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2014/01/29/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/
"Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a ‘Same-Sex’ Wedding? Not Likely" - Stan Guthrie | BreakPoint.org | March 6, 2014; http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/24717/
"NFL revenue: Here comes another record season" - Chris Isidore |CNN.com | September 10, 2015; http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/10/news/companies/nfl-revenue-profits/
"Super Bowl 50 Ratings: CBS Draws Third Largest Audience on Record" - Rick Kissell | Variety.com | February 8, 2016; http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/super-bowl-50-ratings-cbs-third-largest-audience-on-record-1201699814/

"They're Just Not That into Us" - Roberto Rivera | BreakPoint.org | March 21, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/29039

"Georgia governor to veto 'religious liberty' bill" - Ralph Ellis | CNN | March 28, 2016; http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/georgia-north-carolina-lgbt-bills/index.html
"ACLU, LGBT Groups Sue North Carolina Over Transgender Bathroom Ordinance Ban" - Michael Gryboski | Christian Post | March 28, 2016; http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-lgbt-sue-north-carolina-transgender-bathroom-ordinance-ban-160264/
"NBA threat on All-Star Game raises concerns in Charlotte" - WNCN Staff | Wncn.com | March 25, 2016; http://wncn.com/2016/03/25/nba-treat-on-all-star-game-raises-concerns-in-charlotte/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Snub Hub: Intolerant Libs Try to Blacklist N.C."- Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 29, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16C34&f=WU16C12

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

#1543 (3/29 "Anti-Christian Violence Threatens Fabric of Pakistani Society"

"ANTI-CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE THREATENS THE FABRIC OF PAKISTANI SOCIETY"Lisa Curtis / March 28, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/28/anti-christian-violence-threatens-fabric-of-pakistani-society/ [AS I SEE IT: As I may have noted in the past, I was in Pkistan in the summer of 1979 when there was a nationwide outreach to share the gospel. I will never forget being told privately by some Christians that they were even then considering whether they it was safe for them to be a Christian in Pakistan and whether they should consider leaving their country. While such fears may have been a bit premature then, they definitely spoke of the kind of hostility Christians have now come to expect as an oppressed minority today. What doing a major outreach with the gospel was possible then is certainly unthinkable now. (P.S. - I was shocked to learn recently that on a world map, Pakistan is now listed as "The Islamic State of Pakistan." May incidents like this serve to remind us to regularly pray for our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. - Stan]

Pakistani Christians light candles for suicide blast victims during a vigil ceremony in eastern Pakistan's Lahore on March 28. (Photo: Jamil Ahmed Xinhua News Agency/Newscom)

Terrorists in Pakistan have targeted Christians in an Easter day attack. A suicide bomber detonated at a park in Lahore, where many Christian families were celebrating the holiday. Media reports indicate that half of the nearly 72 killed in the suicide bombing were children.
It was the worst terrorist attack in Pakistan in over 15 months.

A breakaway faction of the Pakistani Taliban, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the group directly targeted Christians and that the bombing was a message to the Pakistani government that “we will carry out such attacks again until sharia is imposed in the country.”

This is the third major terrorist attack in recent years directed against Pakistan’s Christians, who make up less than two percent of the country’s total population. In March 2015, two Christian churches were bombed simultaneously, killing 15, and in Sept. 2013, a suicide bombing of a church in Peshawar killed nearly 80.

In addition to the targeted terrorist attacks, Pakistan’s beleaguered Christian community also faces regular persecution and the threat of mob violence because of the proliferation of hardline Islamist ideologies throughout the country. For instance, there was a mob attack in March 2013 against a Christian community in the Punjab after a man was accused of committing blasphemy.

In an upcoming special edition of The Review of Faith & International Affairs, I argue that the growing pattern of religious intolerance and persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan is threatening the fabric of Pakistani society and undermining democracy.The proliferation of Sunni Islamist militant groups, along with exclusionary laws and a flawed education curriculum that teaches religious intolerance, has contributed to the crisis. One of the most prominent examples of the growing culture of intolerance and extremism is the misuse of the blasphemy law and the inability of the Pakistani political leadership to amend these harsh laws due to threats from extremist forces.

Demonstrators thronged Islamabad over the weekend to protest last month’s execution of Mumtaz Qadri, who had assassinated Punjab Governor Salman Taseer on Jan. 4, 2011, while serving as his bodyguard. Taseer was an outspoken critic of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and had defended a Christian farm worker, Asia Bibi, who has been jailed under blasphemy charges since 2009. [Note a reference to Asia Bibi under the World Prayer News section above.] The recent demonstrations against Qadri’s execution show how deeply religious intolerance runs in Pakistani society.

The Pakistani authorities have reacted strongly to the terrorist attack, and Pakistani military spokesman Gen. Asim Bajwa said the army had already launched several raids throughout the Punjab province and picked up suspects and arms caches. Pakistani officials have decided to give paramilitary forces the powers to conduct raids and interrogations in the same aggressive manner as they have been doing in Karachi for the last two years.

While the paramilitary crackdown against the terrorists responsible for Sunday’s abominable attack is certainly welcome, Pakistani officials need to take a more concerted, multi-faceted approach to rooting out religious intolerance from society and providing special protection to Pakistan’s religious minorities.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Lisa Curtis analyzes America's economic, security and political relationships with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other nations of South Asia as a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

Monday, March 28, 2016

#1542 (3/28) "Obama’s Legacy Will Be Marked by His Silence on Human Rights in Cuba"

"OBAMA'S LEGACY WILL BE MARKED BY HIS SILENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN CUBA" Ana Quintana / Ricardo Pita/ March 25, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/25/obamas-legacy-will-be-marked-by-his-silence-on-human-rights-in-cuba/ [AS I SEE IT: Add to the President's ignoring of the human rights issue in Cuba was the almost total disregard of the mainstream press for his inaction. Story after story only trumpeted the "changes" that will supposedly happen to improve the lives of the Cuban people. Forget the continued legacy of the regimes' disregard for human rights. Shameful ... but sadly not unexpected with this President. Such is his legacy. - Stan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in 2015, long before his trip was announced, President Barack Obama stated that he would only travel to Cuba if he saw “some progress in the liberty and freedom”. But like his red-line of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, such assurance was clearly just another one of the president’s “red-lines”, and Gen. Raul Castro knew it.

Since the thaw began, the Cuban government has doubled down on its repressive tactics, with political and religious persecution levels increasing drastically. It is now clear that there is nothing that the Cuban regime can do to draw Obama’s criticism. Just a few hours shy of Air Force One’s landing in Havana, the Ladies in White were assaulted by government agents, a local pastor and a journalist were brutally arrested, and more than three-hundred dissidents were detained.

Yet, in spite of these circumstances, there were plenty that hoped Obama would pivot and stand up to Castro once in the island. This assumed that the president would see the light, and through public diplomacy would attempt to improve the lives of the people of Cuba. Any such hopes were crushed by Obama’s joint press conference with Castro. While there were moments when Obama spoke of basic rights like freedom of speech, he spent the majority of the time being lectured by Castro.

Instead of taking the despot to task for his countless crimes, or at the very least defend the country he represents, Obama chose to welcome a butcher’s criticism without offering any in return. While Castro’s attacks were predictable, the president’s submissiveness shouldn’t have been. This was Obama’s best opportunity to condemn the Cuban regime for its countless human rights abuses and take a public stand in favor of the Cuban people.

In an appalling absence of courage, Obama went on to defer the task of confronting Castro to two journalists. In a display of the very best virtues that underwrite their profession, both of them looked Castro in the eye and did what Obama failed to do, they took him to task. The exchange that ensued put Castro’s pettiness in full display, as he proceeded to lose his temper after being challenged on the status of political prisoners. A small win, but one that the president will undoubted take credit in his memoirs one day. After all, he called on them, right? The truth is that throughout his trip Obama cowered at every opportunity to reject the abuses of the regime.

By failing to condemn Castro’s abuses in front of him and the people he oppresses, Obama has effectively appeased a murderous regime and enabled it to continue its crimes. The president’s silence is a tacit approval of the Cuban regime’s crimes.

 Through this visit, Obama officially joins the shameful ranks of other hemispheric leaders that have turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in the region—choosing to sell out the Cuban people in the name of good economic relations with their oppressor. Obama’s visit will be remembered not for the business deals he brokered with the Cuban military, nor his first pitch in for the Tampa Bay Rays, or even for his awkward handshake with Castro, but for the deafening sound of his silence.

His betrayal of the Cuban people will live in infamy, and like his hosts, history will not absolve him.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Ana Quintana is a policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. Ricardo Pita is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.
The president’s decision to visit Cuba was a great mistake from the start.

"6 Questions Obama Should Have Asked Castro"Lee Edwards/ March 23, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/6-questions-obama-should-have-asked-castro/

Sunday, March 27, 2016

# 1541 (3/27) EASTER SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Resurrection Hope - Jesus and Scripture"

He is Risen
He is Risen! He is Risen Indeed! - "What a glorious truth to ponder-Jesus is not the "Great I WAS" but rather the "Great I AM!" He is not only a historical fact but a present day, living reality. The whole system of Christianity rests upon the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the grave and is seated at the Father's right hand as our personal advocate... If all eternity is to be realized on this side of the grave, we are hopeless and to be pitied (I Cor. 15:19). But for the Christian, the resurrection assures us of God's tomorrow. This anticipation makes it possible to live today, regardless of life's circumstances." - Kenneth W. Osbeck, "Amazing Grace" p. 126

"Christ the Lord Is Risen Today" - by Charles Wesley, 1739 / "The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said... Matthew 28:5-6

Christ the Lord is ris’n today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heav’ns, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

Love’s redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!

Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Foll’wing our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!

Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!

"RESURRECTION  HOPE - JESUS AND SCRIPTURE" - By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.org: April 5, 2012; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/19110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Christian hope is not wide-eyed optimism or emotions. Christian hope is based on the certainty of God’s promises and His character. And it is evidenced by the fruits of joy, sacrificial love, boldness, and endurance. We see no better example of this kind of hope than in the life of our Savior, especially in the days and hours before His death.

In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus certainly had cause to abandon hope. His closest friends fell asleep in the time when, as he said, His soul was “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.” He pled with His Father to take the cup away from Him if it was possible. But there was no other way. Yet even in that hour of agony, Jesus pressed on. The writer of Hebrews tells us why: “For the joy set before Him, [He] endured the cross, despising its shame.”

When the authorities came for Him, and Judas betrayed the Son of Man with a kiss, Jesus showed us the example of hope’s boldness. His disciples reached for their swords to protect Him, but Jesus rebuked them. He said, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”

No one could press on like this without hope. But where did it come from? Jesus told the disciples its source in those very moments. He said, “But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way?”

From childhood, Jesus had studied the Word of God. He read from Isaiah’s scrolls at the beginning of his public ministry. He had declared Himself to be the Suffering Servant whom Isaiah had foretold.
We see this again later, after the resurrection on the road to Emmaus. Jesus opened up the minds of the disciples to see all the things that had been foretold about Him in the Scriptures. Jesus—He who enjoyed the deepest level of intimacy with the Father—showed us how to put our hope in God by trusting in the Word of God.

The hope this gave Him enabled Him to endure what followed: the mockery, the scourging, the hammer, the lance, and the abandonment. Christ showed us hope transformed into sacrificial love. And as He was crushed under the weight of the sins of the world, the fragrance of His gift goes up to God as the perfect—the most pleasing—of any sacrifice.

And just as had been foretold, on the third day Christ did rise from the grave. He broke the chains of the captive. He set the prisoners free by conquering death and sin.

As Christians, we have no reason to lack hope. Christ has shown the trustworthiness of God and of His Word. Having seen that God loved us enough that He did not spare even His own Son, how can we lack for hope today, even in these bleak times? Christ became for us both the basis of our hope, and our ultimate example of hope.

As we celebrate Easter ..., I want to challenge you to, in these tough times, make a point to live in light of that tremendous resurrection hope. Be joyful. Love beyond what is reasonable. Be bold. And endure. You are not like those who have no hope. You live on the other side of the Resurrection. 

[First aired on April 10, 2009.] [ bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Further Reading and Information 
"Got Hope?" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | April 3, 2012; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/19097
"The Halls of Hope" - Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | April 4, 2012; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/19109
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Historic Consequences of the Cross" Erick Erickson  |  March 25, 2016; http://theresurgent.com/the-historic-consequences-of-the-cross/
"The Seven Signs of Easter" - file:///C:/Users/Stan/Downloads/SevenSignsOfEaster.pdf
"We're Not All Right: The Extremism of Sin, Cross, and Empty Tomb
HERE GOES -- I MEAN AMEN"By: G. Shane Morris|Published: March 25, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/29067

Saturday, March 26, 2016

#1540 (3/26) PRO-LIFE SAT: "...76% of Doctors Say It’s OK to Put DNR on Disabled Baby Without Telling His Parents"

"Shock Study: 76% OF DOCTORS SAY IT'S OK TO PUT DNR ON DISABLED BABY WITHOUT TELLING PARENTS"Jesi Smith, Mar. 24, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/24/shock-study-76-of-doctors-say-its-ok-to-put-dnr-on-disabled-baby-without-telling-his-parents/  [AS I SEE IT: As shocking as this story is, this is not unexpected as we live in a society where more and more the term "quality of life" is used. When medical costs become such that people start to use that term in a matter-of-fact manner, we should all wonder if decisions are being made for us by doctors and insurance companies who have decided that they know who should deserves to live and who does not. It's why being pro-life has come to mean much more than being against abortion. - Stan]
lanehauber
The Journal of Medical Ethics published on March 17, 2016 a survey compiled from 490 out of 3000 practicing neonatologists. The survey showed 76% of the neonatologists thought it was ethically permissible to issue a ‘Do Not Attempt Resuscitation’, (DNAR), without asking or notifying the parents for an infant when they “felt it impossible” for the child to survive. 61% of the neonatologists said a DNAR without parental consent was permissible when survival was ‘unlikely’. (See: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/unilateral-do-not-resuscitate-orders-what-doctors-think/11807)

Lane Hauber (pictured) had a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ put on his file as a newborn without his parent’s knowledge or consent. The first few days of his life the hospital staff had been optimistic and talked of how Lane would be treated with heart surgery. However, everything changed three days after Lane was born and he was diagnosed with an extra 18th chromosome.

Lane’s father, Alex, arrived in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for a visit to find a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ (DNR) in paperwork attached to his son’s crib. When Lane’s parents asked who had put the DNR on his file, they were ushered into a private room with the doctor and told the hospital “can make the decision to place a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ on a patient without the parent’s approval.”

“We were devastated,” Lane’s mom Alisha expressed, “…not only did we get the shock of the diagnosis, but now we were being told that we had zero rights in making medical decisions for our son.” Alisha stated, “The hospital sent us home with zero information, zero support, and told us that we might have a week at most with our son.” Now that Lane is 7 years old and lives with unrepaired holes in his heart, his parents question what kind of life their son could have had if he had been given equal treatment and rights as a patient at birth.

“We felt lied to by the hospital, and angry about our child not being treated like a human being. Why is it O.K. to take away parental rights? Aren’t we the ones that have to live with the consequences of our decisions?” For the neonatologist to secretly and lethally neglect a patient based on many unknowable qualities and capacities at birth can neither be called scientific nor compassionate medical care.

The same physicians who would be shocked or angry when a patient would deny the doctor information to do their job are denying their newborn patients standard care and informed consent. Lane’s parents assumed the hospital and doctors were acting in good faith toward their son seven years ago until they stumbled across the ‘Do Not Resuscitate’. This current study displays that the vast majority of doctors would treat Lane the same way today.

This chilling admission by such a great number of practicing neonatologists that it is “ethically permissible” to secretly put DNR’s on medically vulnerable patients shows that by and large these doctors do not see their responsibility as a doctor to be transparent with their most vulnerable patients. It is reminiscent of the class action suit from 1973 that was filed on behalf of hundreds of poor black men, women, and children at Tuskegee. The doctors who carried out a study entitled the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” never told the men that its purpose was to show the consequences of untreated syphilis in the black male. Even when penicillin became a known standard treatment for the disease during the 40 years of the study, the men were never informed.

There is little doubt that any patient, whether the vulnerable newborn or the poor farmer, who has standard medical care deliberately and secretly withheld are being treated as less than human. Whether this lack of ethical behavior is a reflection of the attitude in society or in the medical professional it should elicit a huge outcry on behalf of those who are vulnerable patients.

President Bill Clinton apologized to Tuskegee victims in 1997. He commented that, “The people who ran the study…diminished the stature of man by abandoning the most basic ethical precepts. They forgot their pledge to heal and repair.”

Where is Lane’s apology? If these practicing neonatologists cannot be trusted to treat and be transparent, where are children like Lane to go? This is truly frightening that 3/4’s of doctors believe it is “ethical” to issue a DNAR without even telling the parents. Neglecting the patients right to standard treatment and informed consent based on subjective assessments that are little more than that particular doctor’s best guess at the moment is not just ethically unjustified…it is evil.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews Note: Jesi Smith and her husband Brad are pro-life speakers with Save The 1, from Rochester Hills, Michigan. Smith is a wife and mother to five children including one very special girl named Faith.  Learn more at www.keepingourfaith.com.”

Friday, March 25, 2016

# 1539 (3/25 ) GOOD FRIDAY: "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" / "This Is Why He Came and Died..."

Remember Sacrifice

"WHEN I SURVEY THE WONDROUS CROSS" 
[hymn by Isaac Watts, 1674 - 1748]

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

"THIS IS WHY HE CAME AND DIED - Reflections on Good Friday"By: Chuck Colson| Breakpoint.org: April 6, 2012;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/19113
daily_commentary_03_25_16
How does Good Friday inform our Christian worldview? Reflect with me on that.

Can it really be just three months ago we gathered with loved ones to celebrate Christmas? What joy we felt as we celebrated the birth of the baby Jesus. Emmanuel. God with us.

But today, on Good Friday, we reflect on how that beautiful babe in the manger came to fulfill a mission. A terrible and glorious mission! God invaded planet Earth. He became a human child, to live as one of us, to call us to repent, to love God with our whole heart, minds, and souls, and our neighbors as ourselves.

And today we should tremble and shudder as we remember the horrible climax of His mission. Beaten, scourged, mocked, and stabbed, Jesus mounted the cross, receiving the just punishment for your sins. For my sins. For the sins of the world. 

This is why He came and died.

Yes, Easter is coming. The light is at the end of the tunnel. But that’s days away. Today, stop. Think about why He came and died.

He came because He knew that mankind was lost. He knew that we would kill our own babies in the womb by the millions. And that many would call this horrible evil good.

This is why He came and died.

He knew that hatred would drive men and women to strap bombs to themselves to kill innocent people in the name of religion.

This is why He came and died.

He knew that man would deny that God was his creator. That man would seek to remake himself in his own image, tamper with the genetic code, and treat human life as mere test-tube material.

This is why He came and died.

And He knew that His own bride, the Church, would grow cold and distant, forgetful of the faith given once for all. Comfortable with the world and its ways. Seeking relevance instead of love, pleasure instead of holiness.

This is why He came and died.

And He knew that you and I, covered with sin, could never stand before God, our all-holy Father, without His supreme sacrifice.

So today, don’t look ahead to Easter. Instead, reflect on the Passion. Examine your life. And repent! Repent of your sins, repent of your coldness of heart. Ask God to grant you the desire to serve Him, your Lord and Master, with all your strength.

And then, please, ask God for a spirit of repentance and revival to sweep down upon the Church—and upon the nations of the world. It is our only hope in these terrible, dark times.

We speak so often on BreakPoint about Christianity being not just a relationship with Jesus, but an all-encompassing worldview—a way to see and understand all reality. But the Christian worldview is brought into focus only by the cross.

Indeed, if the joy of Christmas and the glory of Easter are the light by which we see all reality, then the cross, Good Friday, is the lens through which we see it.

May God bless you on this terrible, wonderful day.

[First aired on April 2, 2010.] [bold, italics and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

RESOURCES
Death on a Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus- Richard John Neuhaus | Basic Books | January 2001

The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It, and Why It Matters- Charles Colson| Zondervan | September 2008

"The Truth about Everything: Death on a Friday Afternoon"Charles Colson| BreakPoint.org| March 21, 2008;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/10510

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

"It Is Finished!"Michael Brown | Mar 25, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/03/25/it-is-finished-n2138980/page/full

Thursday, March 24, 2016

#1538 (3/24) "Why the Little Sisters of the Poor Believe Obamacare Mandate Violates Their Religious Liberty"

"WHY THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR BELIEVE OBAMACARE MANDATE VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY"Grace Stark / March 23, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/why-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-believe-obamacare-mandate-violates-their-religious-liberty/ [AS I SEE IT: When the federal government is allowed to mandate, ie force by rule of law, a group of Catholic nuns to do what goes against their sincere and long held convictions, are any of our convictions safe from a government mandate! If the freedom of these nuns to practice their faith is taken from them, then we should all fear what restrictions will be placed on our religious freedom. - Stan]

(Photo: Barbara Johnson/KRT/Newscom)

The Little Sisters of the Poor is a group of Catholic nuns who typically lead a quiet, dignified existence caring for the elderly poor. In the last few years, that quiet existence has been troubled by the constant court battles the group has been fighting over the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraceptive mandate,” which requires employers to offer employee health plans that include coverage for contraceptive services, including sterilization and abortifacient contraceptives.

As a Catholic group, the Little Sisters oppose all forms of artificial contraception and argue that the ACA’s mandate to provide contraceptive services in their employee health care plans violates their conscience as a Catholic religious organization. The issue at stake in the Little Sisters’ case is chiefly one of religious liberty, but it ultimately springs from a sincerely held and authentically Catholic conception of bioethics. The Little Sister’s long legal battle began four years ago in March 2012, when they first began publicly opposing the ACA contraception mandate. Throughout their legal journey, the Little Sisters have traveled from the District Court of Colorado, to the Tenth Circuit Court, and finally, to the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments for the case Wednesday and the recent death of the devoutly Catholic, strongly conservative justice Antonin Scalia has many interested parties concerned about the potential outcome for the Little Sisters, and the precedent their case will set.

The Problem With the Government’s ‘Compromise’
     The issue at stake in the Little Sisters’ case is primarily one of religious liberty. The Little Sisters argue that Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which states that the government must have a “compelling interest” in violating sincerely held religious objections, protects them from being forced to comply with the mandate. While the government has provided EBSA Form 700 in an attempt to accommodate religious groups with conscientious objections to contraceptives, the Little Sisters do not see the form as relieving their conscience. Filing Form 700 would notify the Little Sisters’ health plan administrator of their religious objections and authorize the health plan administrator to provide these services to the Little Sisters’ female employees without charge. A government subsidy would cover the cost of their provision. As with any self-insured employer health plan, such as the one sponsored by Little Sisters of the Poor, the plan administrator must follow the terms of its contract with the plan’s sponsoring employer. Thus, any employer filing form 770 is effectively giving its consent to altering the terms of its contract with its plan administrator.

Consequently, the Little Sisters believe that in (a) being made to provide plans that include contraceptive coverage in the first place, and (b) then being required to notify their health plan administrator that they will not pay for the services so that the administrator may still cover the services for the Little Sisters’ employees, (c) filing Form 700 makes the Little Sisters an accessory in the provision of those services.

This is a morally reprehensible outcome for the Little Sisters, as objectionable as if they were made to provide for the services themselves. For the Little Sisters, the fact that the government would ultimately foot the bill for these services is irrelevant.

What the Little Sisters Believe
     Here, it is important to understand that while the Little Sisters’ Supreme Court case hinges on religious liberty, the core issue is the Catholic belief that the use of any form of contraception in the avoidance of pregnancy constitutes a moral evil. This is a belief long held by the Catholic Church, with origins in Scripture, and continuously defended in official Church doctrine—most notably in Pope Paul VI’s landmark 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” Church teachings on contraception are firmly rooted in the Church’s conception of natural law, human sexuality, the dignity of the human person, and the sacrament of marriage.

While spouses need not intend pregnancy with each sexual act, there must be an openness to the creation of new life. Therefore, the Church strictly prohibits the use of all forms of contraception, and instead encourages couples to responsibly and faithfully plan their families using one of the several highly effective methods of Natural Family Planning.

Furthermore, through various functions, some contraceptive agents may function as abortifacients. Because breakthrough ovulation happens to a varying degree across different contraceptive options, conception may occur despite the couple’s use of contraception. The newly formed life may then be prevented from implanting in the uterus due to the contraceptive, which results in the death of the new life—thus, the contraceptive functions as an abortifacient. The Catholic Church’s longstanding injunction against abortion, which it views as a grave moral evil, makes abortifacient contraceptives all the more morally reprehensible. There’s also the serious – though conveniently overlooked – issue that greater access to contraception does not actually reduce the frequency of unintended pregnancies or abortions, but may actually increase both.

As a fundamentally Catholic group, there can be no doubt that the Little Sisters’ adherence to the Church’s teachings on contraception are “sincerely held.” The sincerity claim is an important one, in light of last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. And while the sincerity of Hobby Lobby’s Christian conviction was uncontested in their own successful RFRA-based challenge to the ACA’s contraception mandate, calls have been made that in moving forward, the Court should place more scrutiny on the sincerity of religious objections. No one with an understanding of Catholic teaching, as simply and clearly laid out in this piece, should doubt that the Little Sisters’ religious objections are authentic and sincere.

It now remains for the Court to decide whether the Little Sisters’ claims of forced compliance in providing contraceptives to their female employees passes the litmus test of being an “undue burden” on their religious conscience. Personally, I am of the belief that the Little Sisters are a much better judge of what actions will burden their conscience than anyone else could ever hope to be.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Grace Stark is a M.A. candidate in bioethics and health policy at Loyola University Chicago, and holds a B.S. in Health Care Management & Policy from Georgetown University. Her writing has been featured at the Public Discourse, The Federalist, RedState, and the Daily Signal. You can follow her online at alldoneinlove.com. She currently lives in Guam with her husband.

"Big Brother Bullies Little Sisters at the Supreme Court" - Hans von Spakovsky / Tiffany Bates / March 23, 2016 ;http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/big-brother-bullies-little-sisters-at-the-supreme-court/
"Little Sisters of the Poor Case Heads to Supreme Court" - Elizabeth Slattery/ Sarah Torre / March 21, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/21/little-sisters-of-the-poor-case-heads-to-supreme-court/
"Obamacare Mandate Would Make ‘Hypocrites’ of Catholic University, Its President Says" - Mariana Barillas / March 22, 2016;http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/22/obamacare-mandate-would-make-hypocrites-of-catholic-university-its-president-says/

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

#1537 (3/23) "An Unholy War - ANSWERING JIHAD"

"An Unholy War - ANSWERING JIHAD" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakoint.org: March 15, 2016;http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29005 [AS I SEE IT: As with yesterday's story about the murder of the Wycliffe Associates workers, the mainstream media didn't find the terrorist attack on a Christian facility in this story worth reporting. As the Pope said, the non-reporting was "disgraceful." - Stan]
daily_commentary_03_15_16
Is there any answer to violent jihad? Yes. It’s the same as God’s answer to sin.

Let me tell you a story that, tragically, has no happy ending. Vincent Minj, who is almost 80, was the oldest of six children growing up in rural India, and he remembers the day decades ago when his sister, Cecilia, fell into a well near their home and almost died.

Somehow however, Cecilia lived, and Vincent took her survival as a sign from God. He told The Indian Express newspaper, “I thought that if God had given her another life, it had to be used in His service . . . So I just took her along with me and got her admitted to the Missionaries of Charity.”

That order of nuns, of course, was founded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta to care for the poorest of India’s poor who would otherwise die alone and unloved. Vincent, who was a preacher himself, told his father that Cecilia was going to get an education in the city of Ranchi. What she got instead was a lifetime of serving the poor in India, then the United States, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, and, finally, Yemen. She was proving the corollary of a famous observation by Mother Teresa: “A life not lived for others is not a life.”

On Friday, March 4th, Sister Anselm, as she’d come to be known, was working as a nurse in the lawless southern port city of Aden. More than 6,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced in the mostly Arab Muslim country’s ongoing civil war.

Sister Anselm was serving breakfast for the residents of the retirement home when some men came to the front gate, saying they wanted to visit their mothers. This home, founded by Mother Teresa in 1992, was reportedly the last Christian facility in the country of more than 26 million people, and it ministered to developmentally disabled children, as well as to old and dying people.

Of course, the men at the gate were lying, and once they gained access, they handcuffed the residents and the nuns and shot them in the head. Sixteen people, including Sister Anselm and three other nuns, died. While groups linked to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are roaming the city as if it were a dystopic, real-world version of “Mad Max,” no one has taken responsibility for the massacre, which the Vatican calls an “act of senseless and diabolical violence.”

Vincent now has only a worn photo of Sister Anselm to remember her by.

The story goes that a British newspaperman asked the redoubtable G.K. Chesterton what was wrong with the world. Rather than waxing eloquent on poverty, greed, or unjust social structures, the great author got right to the point: “I am,” he said.

And indeed, we all are, following our first parents into rebellion, degradation, and exile from the Garden. That’s why the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection for sinners is good, because we are so bad. And while there are many expressions of our unholy war against God in the 21st century, certainly the one grabbing the most headlines seems to be the radicals who apparently enjoy murdering and terrorizing people such as Sister Anselm in the name of Islam.

That’s why I hope you’ll listen to the latest installment of “BreakPoint This Week,” hosted by my friend and colleague John Stonestreet, who interviews Nabeel Qureshi about his great new book, “Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward.” Nabeel, who used to be a Muslim, is today a follower of Christ, and his book clearly and convincingly answers every question you’re likely to have about the religion founded by Muhammad.

Even better, it will help us sinners think through a truly Christian response to the unholy war we see in the news, as well as the Muslim neighbor who may live down the street. Don’t miss this “BreakPoint This Week”—it’s terrific! You can find it at BreakPoint.org, along with Nabeel’s book “Answering Jihad.”

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
BreakPoint This Week:"Answering Jihad" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | March 12, 2016; https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/29004

"Nuns killed in Yemen retirement home attack" - BBC.com | March 5, 2016;http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35735947

"The Mystery of Original Sin" - Marguerite Shuster | ChristianityToday.com | April 19, 2013;http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/april/mystery-of-original-sin.html

"Yemen attack: Nun left 40 years ago, all family may get are ‘blood-stained clothes’" Prashant Pandey | The India Express | March 6, 2016;
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/nun-left-40-years-ago-all-family-may-get-are-blood-stained-clothes-yemen-attack-nun-yemen-attack/

"Pope Condemns "Apathy" of Media and World Leaders Over "Diabolical" Acts By Radical Islamist Assassins of Mother Teresa Nuns and Kidnapping of Priest in Yemen-Why the Deafening Silence?"Noel Irwin Hentschel | Huffingtonpost.com | March 7, 2016;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noel-irwin-hentschel/pope-condemns-apathy-of-m_b_9399656.html

"Answering Jihad, author remarks" - website - http://rzim.org/answeringjihad

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

# 1536 (3/22) TERRORISTS: "Four Wycliffe Associates Workers Murdered..." / What Brussels Attack Says to US

"FOUR WYCLIFFE ASSOCIATE WORKERS MURDERED by Militants in Middle East"CBN News, 03-20-2016; http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/march/four-wycliffe-associates-workers-murdered-by-militants-in-middle-east [AS I SEE IT: Somehow this terrorist attack on a Christian organization failed to get the attention of the mainstream media. I guess certain people are not worth reporting about. - Stan]

Militants killed four workers from Wycliffe Associates [affiliate of Wycliffe Bible Translators] in the Middle East this week, the Bible translating ministry reports. The ministry said that terrorists raided the translator's office and shot and killed two of the translators. Two other workers saved the lead translator by laying on top of him, but they died deflecting bludgeoning blows from the attackers' weapons. The militants also destroyed all of the equipment in the office and burned all the books and other translation materials in sight.

But Wycliffe Associates are praising God that the computer hard drives containing the translation work for eight language projects was not destroyed. "The remaining translation team has decided to re-double their efforts to translate, publish, and print God's Word for these eight language communities," the ministry said in a statement.

The ministry requested prayer for the families of the murdered translators. "Please ask the Lord to mend the hearts and wounds of the translation team who have gone through this horrible ordeal," Mae Greenleaf, a prayer coordinator said in a statement.

She asked for prayer for the safety of the team moving forward, and that they would be able to replace lost equipment and continue the work that God has called them to do in the Middle East.

"Pray with me for the killers too," she added. "Pray for these whose hearts are so hard. Pray the Lord will open their eyes to what they have done. Please ask the Lord to meet them, each one, right where they are. Pray that He will show Himself merciful, that they will know His forgiveness, His love, and His peace."

"After Brussels Attacks, US Must Not Repeat Europe’s Mistakes"
James Carafano/  March 22, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/22/after-brussels-attacks-us-must-not-repeat-europes-mistakes/ 

Security forces patrol after a series of terror attacks rocked Brussels, Belgium on March 22. (Photo: Federico Gambarini/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom)
.
The first question security professionals around the world ask after a horrific terrorist attack is: What’s next? The second question is: How to stop it?

Today, Americans woke up to news that Europe had been hit again, with reports of two bombs in Brussels that killed [31]and injured scores [over 131]. The attacks come only days after the arrest in the city of the perpetrators of the terrorist strike in Paris last year.

A top concern here will be that the terror campaigns being orchestrated there could be directed here. There is a precedent for that. A core of the participants in the 9/11 attack organized a cell in Hamburg, Germany.

If there are cells in Europe interested in attacking one of their chief challenges will be traveling here. The U.S. has been focused on thwarting terrorist travel to the U.S. since the tragic attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. The danger was a major subject of investigation for the 9/11 commission.

What the U.S. has done since 9/11 has been to focus on finding and stopping terrorists who might try to travel here. That is a strategy that makes sense. Terrorists travel in small numbers and have tried every conceivable way to get from there to here. Shutting down a particular method of travel doesn’t impede them much. They’ll try something else. What works best is to identify and thwart them, not frustrate the travel of everyone else.

The bigger issue for the U.S. is not to repeat the mistake of Europe and allow an extended Islamist terrorist network to spread its tentacles throughout our land. While the Islamist extremist threat inspired by ISIS is a global problem, it does not look the same all over the globe. As a result of homegrown extremist communities and a number of foreign fighters that have passed back and forth from Europe to the Middle East, western Europe has a footprint of terrorist cells that can pull off attacks like those that occurred in Brussels and Paris.

Shutting down foreign fighter pipelines is important. So too is sensible and proactive counterterrorism investigations here that interdict potential terror threats before they start to look like Paris and Brussels and responsible immigration and border security policies.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.

"KT McFarland on the ‘Powder Keg’ That’s About to Explode in Europe"
Genevieve Wood / March 17, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/17/powder-keg-kt-mcfarland-on-americas-long-war-against-radical-islam/ 

Monday, March 21, 2016

# 1535 (3/21) "Obama’s Visit to Cuba Betrays America’s Commitment to Freedom"

"OBAMA'S VISIT TO CUBA BETRAYS AMERICA'S  COMMITMENT TO FREEDOM" Ricardo Pita/ Ana Quintana/ Feb.19,2016/ 
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/19/obamas-visit-to-cuba-betrays-americas-commitment-to-freedom/

(Photo: Anthony Behar/AdMedia/Newscom)

When President Barack Obama arrives in Havana...,he will be greeted by an old-school autocrat, hungry for resources to sustain his oppressive regime. His visit will do little to improve the lives of every day Cubans, but it will significantly strengthen the regime that rules them at gunpoint.

It is clear that human rights are not at the forefront of the administration’s Cuba policy, so this rapprochement will do little else besides lend unearned legitimacy to a murderous dictatorship.

No sitting U.S. president has set foot on Cuban soil since Calvin Coolidge visited the democratically elected Cuban President Gerardo Machado in 1928. The reason: For over half a century, the island nation has been ruled by a military dictatorship born from a bloody revolution and preserved through foreign-subsidized repression. Led by Raúl Castro, the Cuban regime has murdered, imprisoned, and silenced countless of its own citizens. Internationally, it has actively worked to undermine democracy in the Americas, using its puppet in Venezuela to incubate and spread the anti-democratic disease that ails most of the Western Hemisphere.

By rushing to normalize relations with Cuba, Obama is setting a dangerous precedent. He is appeasing a dictator and isolating Congress. This cavalier behavior has compromised America’s stance abroad. Lending recognition to the Cuban regime betrays American values and sends the wrong message to both our allies and adversaries. His administration’s continued unilateral concessions have emboldened the regime and undermined the democratic efforts it oppresses. How can America justify crossing oceans in the defense of liberty if it chooses to ignore abuses occurring less than 90 miles away from our shores.

When asked about visiting Cuba in a December 2015 interview, Obama said he wished to meet with Cuba’s dissidents “who want to broaden the scope for, you know, free expression inside of Cuba.”
However, considering his decision to stand with the regime, instead of the civil society it oppresses, this statement rings hollow.

Even if the president musters the courage to ask for such a meeting or to initiate a serious human rights discussion, his concessions have left the U.S. no real leverage to advocate for human rights. Raúl Castro has rightly judged Obama’s interest in the rapprochement to be more about his political legacy than the plight of the Cuban people. As it stands, the president will be another tourist in Havana. He will see and do only what he is allowed to and will leave the regime richer and stronger than when he landed.

Choosing to level with Castro in his own turf is Obama’s latest and most damaging concession yet. He has indeed charted a “new course” by reversing years of democratic efforts and returning to the old policies that enabled despots in the hemisphere. So far, the only accomplishment of the president’s radical Cuba policy has been the legitimization of the Castro regime, and it increasing looks like it will be the only one.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Ricardo Pita is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. Ana Quintana is a policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Obama's Cuba Visit Comes Amid Record-Setting Human Rights Abuses"Heather Sells, CBNnews, 03-18-2016; http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/march/obamas-cuba-visit-comes-amid-record-setting-human-rights-abuses

"...  Since the president resumed relations with Cuba in late 2014, government persecution there has only increased. Since November, political arrests have spiked, reaching more than 1,100 arrests a month. It appears that 2016 is on course to be a record-setting year for human rights abuses. Ana Quintana, with the Heritage Foundation, said she believes Americans should be concerned. "I mean, the fact that there are still people being imprisoned in the Western hemisphere, 90 miles away from America, simply for what they believe -- I think all of this should be of great concern," Quintana said. Critics say the president's move encouraged this attack on basic rights. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki said Cuban President Raul Castro fears this new openness with the United States will embolden his opponents. "He's (Castro) worried that Cubans will be activated because of this relationship and they'll be trying to defy the regime," Suchlicki said. Lawrence Haas, with the American Foreign Policy Council, said America didn't use its leverage. "Once the crackdown began, we should have pulled back and we should have said, 'We're not going to strengthen our relations with you unless you move in the right direction,'" Haas said. ... Castro plans to step down in 2018. Suchlicki believes the priority of maintaining conrol and a smooth transition will trump any move to improve human rights...

"Proof That Obama Was Wrong About Cuba" - Mike Gonzalez / Dec. 21, 2015;
http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/21/proof-that-obama-was-wrong-about-cuba/
"Have Human Rights Improved in Cuba? What a Dissident Thinks" -Genevieve Wood / Dec.17, 2015;http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/17/have-human-rights-improved-since-us-normalized-relation-with-cuba-what-a-dissident-thinks/ 
"Radical Terrorists: Coming Soon to a City near You!" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Feb.24, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16B20&f=WU16B06

Sunday, March 20, 2016

# 1534 (3/20) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Should Christians Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?"

"SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS?" - Russell Moore/ March 2, 2016;
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/march-web-only/should-christians-vote-for-lesser-of-two-evils.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=18503153&utm_content=420860877&utm_campaign=email&start=2 [AS I SEE IT: Having voted in all but one (because I was overseas and not alerted to vote) Presidential election in my adult lifetime, this one may easily be the MOST difficult one I've cast a vote in. (It's become more and more difficult the past 2 elections. Admittedly, in each case it WAS a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, BUT at least I had a peace about the choice I made.) In this November's election, IF the present front runners of both major parties win their nomination, I have struggled to know how I would vote. I cannot see having a peace about voting for either. After reading this article, I now know the only choice I will then have - and it's NOT not voting! Please read on. I trust you will find this also helpful. - Stan]
Should Christians Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?
Even at the ballot box, morality is not relative. 

For years, I have urged Christians to take seriously their obligations as citizens, starting with exercising the right to vote. In the public square and at the ballot box, we must be more engaged, not less.

But what happens in a race where Christians are faced with two morally problematic choices? Should voters cast a ballot for the lesser of two evils? This unpredictable election cycle could go in any number of directions, and I keep getting asked this question.

For starters, unless Jesus of Nazareth is on the ballot, any election forces us to choose the lesser of evils. Across every party and platform, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Still, the question is a valid one. Believing in human depravity doesn’t negate our sense of responsibility. By the standard of God’s law, every person is a liar, but that doesn’t mean we should hire an employee we know has a pattern of lying. Jesus taught that all who have lust in their hearts are adulterers, but that doesn’t mean a woman should shrug her shoulders when she learns her potential new husband is a serial philanderer.

When considering the question of choosing between the lesser of two evils, we must begin with what voting is within our system of government. In our system, citizen is an office; we too bear responsibility for the actions of the government. Just as the lordship of Christ made demands for public justice on office-holders in the New Testament (Luke 4:15), the same is true for those who rule as citizens.

The apostle Paul taught that the sword of Caesar is given by God to commend good and punish evil (Rom. 13:1-5). The Bible addresses the limits of this role, recounting those who use the sword in unjust ways and are held accountable to judgment (i.e., Revelation 13).

In a democratic republic, the authority over statecraft rests with the people themselves. In the voting booth, we delegate others to swing the sword of public justice on our behalf. If we think of a campaign like a job interview, we cannot ethically contract someone to do evil on our behalf.

Can a candidate make promises about issues then do something different in office? Yes. Can a candidate present a sense of good character in public then later be revealed to be a fraud? Sure. The same happens with pastors, spouses, employees, and in virtually every other relationship. But that sense of surprise and disappointment is not the same as knowingly delegating our authority to someone with poor character or wicked public stances. Doing so makes us as voters culpable. Saying, “the alternative would be worse” is no valid excuse.

Think of military service, another office of public responsibility, as an example. Members of the military don’t need to approve of everything a general decides to be faithful to their duty to the country. But if they're commanded to either slaughter innocent non-combatants or desert and sign up with the enemies of one’s country, a Christian can’t merely choose the least bad of these options. He would have to conclude that both are wrong and he could not be implicated in either. If a Christian doctor were forced to choose between performing abortions or assisting suicides, she could not choose the lesser of these two evils but must conscientiously object.

That said all political issues are not equal. I’ve voted for candidates I disagreed with on issues like immigration reform or family medical leave because I’ve agreed with them on the sanctity of human life. I could not, though, vote for a “pro-life” candidate who is also for racial injustice or war crimes or any number of other first-level moral issues. There are some candidates I agree on issues like economic growth or national security for whom I could not vote for because they deny the personhood of the unborn or restrict religious freedom for all people.

Given these moral convictions, there have been times when I’ve faced two candidates, both of whom were morally disqualified. In one case, one candidate was pro-life but a race-baiter, running against a candidate who was pro-choice. I could not in good conscience put my name on either candidate. I wrote in the name of another leader. Other times, I’ve voted for a minor party candidate.

Candidates from outside the two major parties sometimes win. Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican in an era when the major parties were the Whigs and Democrats. Even when third-party candidates don’t win the election, they can introduce issues and build a movement for the future. Write-in candidates have occasionally won; US Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won her re-election as a write-in candidate in 2010.

In the cases when I’ve voted for an independent or written in a candidate, I didn’t necessarily expect that candidate to win—my main objective was to participate in the process without endorsing moral evil. As Christians, we are not responsible for the reality of our two-party system or for the way others exercise their citizenship, but we will give an account for how we delegate our authority. Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.

When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse. The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we “give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).

This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option.

[bold, italics, underlined, and colored emphasis mine]

Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and author of Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

#1533 (3/19) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Pregnancy Centers Refuse to Comply With New California Law Forcing Them to Promote Abortion" -

"PREGNANCY CENTERS REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA LAW FORCING THEM TO PROMOTE ABORTION"Micaiah Bilger, MAR 16, 2016|
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/16/pregnancy-centers-refuse-to-comply-with-new-california-law-forcing-them-to-promote-abortion/ [AS I SEE IT: Since pro-abortion groups have been unable to stop these pregnancy centers from actually offering women services they need - and which do not include abortion counseling - they now resort to trying to force such NON-PROFITS (which cut into the abortion industry's profits) to compromise their work. (What's next? Churches having to tell visitors about places that teach atheism? ) How about a law requiring abortion facilities to tell women about these alternatives to their services, how there are places they can go to that will help them NOT CHOOSE to have their unborn child killed?! Let's be sure to keep these pregnancy centers in our prayers, and for attempts to pass similar laws elsewhere to fail. - Stan]
hopepregnancycenter
 Pro-life pregnancy centers in California are refusing to be bullied by a new state rule demanding that they promote abortions.

The radical, pro-abortion law took effect in December, forcing about 150 pro-life non-profits to choose between advertising abortions and facing fines of up to $1,000 if they do not complySome are not.

According to the Sacramento Bee, at least two pregnancy resource centers in the Sacramento area are not following the pro-abortion law. The radical pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice California recently accused both the Sacramento Life Center and the Alternatives Pregnancy Center of failing to advertise abortions, as required by the new mandate, the report states.

Marie Leatherby, executive director of the Sacramento Life Center, told the newspaper that no one from the state has come to enforce the new law. “It does go against what we’re all about,” Leatherby said. “Our mission is about helping women carry their children to term. So, we’re just waiting to see how the lawsuit plays out.”

Her center is among the pro-life organizations that have filed lawsuits against the California law, saying it violates their freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution and, according to one lawsuit, the California Constitution. In December, two judges refused to stop the law from taking effect while the lawsuits continue, LifeNews reported.

The report continues: "Sacramento Life Center and Alternatives Pregnancy Center were the first two centers in the state found by NARAL Pro-Choice California to be allegedly violating Assembly Bill 775, a 2015 law authored by Democratic Assembly members David Chiu, D-San Francisco, and Autumn Burke, D-Marina Del Rey.

The city of Sacramento said it has not performed its own inspections of the clinics or taken actions against them. On Tuesday, NARAL and other abortion rights groups visited four county offices around the state to present petitions asking officials to actively enforce the law.

The new law, which went into effect on Jan. 1, requires all clinics whose primary purpose is providing family planning or pregnancy-related services to post an 8 1/2 -by-11-inch sheet of paper with 22-point type “in a conspicuous place” notifying women of available public services. Clinics also have the option to provide a printed or digital notice to each client at the time of arrival.

An attorney for the city of Sacramento, Gustavo Martinez, said they received a letter from NARAL about the two pregnancy centers, but still are working on procedures for implementing the law. He called NARAL’s accusations “premature.” NARAL said its investigators are continuing to check the pregnancy centers for violations against the new law. The radical pro-abortion group was the key advocate for the California law, using unfounded allegations against community-supported pregnancy help. Amy Everitt, director of the California pro-abortion group, accused pregnancy centers of “wreaking havoc and harm across our country.”

However, Matt Bowman, senior counsel for the pro-life legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, put the law’s implications into real terms for the newspaper.“These centers are faced with an impossible choice – either refer women to have a child killed or face punishment by the state of California,” he said. ADF and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates are representing many of the pro-life groups in court.

The new law forces pregnancy clinics to inform women and girls that California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost abortions for eligible women. These faith-based medical centers must also tell their client to contact the county social services office to see if the pregnant woman qualifies for the free or cheap abortions.

The law will force 150 California pregnancy help non-profits, including the 74 state-licensed free ultrasound facilities, to give each of its clients the following disclaimer, which includes the phone number of a county social services office where a client could obtain an abortion covered by Medi-Cal. ...

Similar government-sponsored speech for pregnancy centers has been struck down as unconstitutional in Austin (TX), Baltimore and Montgomery County (MD) and New York City.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]