#2288 (4/30) "What Trump Can Learn From the Master of the Greatest Deal in American History"

"WHAT TRUMP CAN LEARN FROM THE MASTER OF THE GREATEST DEAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY"- Richard Lim / @ThisAmerPres / April 29, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/29/what-trump-can-learn-from-the-master-of-the-greatest-deal-in-american-histor [AS I SEE IT: I've always loved American history and it saddens me that much of it is not accurately taught in our public schools these days. Here is a great example of how one event in that history can speak to the events of our day. - Stan]

President Thomas Jefferson negotiated with France to broker the Louisiana Purchase, which nearly doubled the geographical size of the United States overnight. (Photo: World History Archive/Newscom)

    Our current president prides himself on being the master of the deal. The upcoming summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will certainly put his bargaining skills to the test.The stakes couldn’t be higher, since they involve the security of one of the most populous and economically vital regions in the world, and North Korea has shown little regard for agreements in the past.

     If President Donald Trump successfully forges a deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, it will go down as one of the greatest deals in American history. With that said, it’s fair to ask whether history provides any lessons in the art of presidential negotiation. Of course, historical situations differ vastly, but it’s still fair to ask whether historical examples can provide any guidance for the general principles of high-stakes negotiation.

Perhaps there is no better place to look than what has been described as the greatest bargain in American history—the Louisiana Purchase. The deal was struck exactly 215 years ago this Monday. In the words of historian Henry Adams, the purchase was “next in historical importance to the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution. It was unparalleled in diplomacy because it cost almost nothing.”
    The purchase did cost something, but as American schoolchildren learn, that cost was absurdly low: $15 million for 828,000 square miles of land, or 3 cents per acre. Even if adjusted for inflation, the price is still a low 60 cents per acre.
    More recent research includes the amount the United States paid to Native Americans in lopsided treaties ($2.6 billion, or $8.5 billion adjusted for inflation)—still far below the worth of the land.

     The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States, and that doubling was a precursor to its eventual domination of the North American continent and its rise to world power. It reduced the hold that European powers had on the continent, thereby mitigating the threat they posed to the young republic. It was the greatest deal in American history, but how did Jefferson pull it off? 

Part of the answer lies in Thomas Jefferson’s own complexities.
    Our third president, whose 275th birthday was on April 13, is known for the eloquence of his pen and his renaissance-man lifestyle, but this image belied his cutthroat political instincts. Jefferson was a shrewd politician, through and through. As secretary of state under George Washington, he had secretly funded an opposition party right under the first president’s nose.
    Just weeks into Jefferson’s presidency, he learned that France was reacquiring the Louisiana Territory from Spain. The prospect of an aggressive Napoleon ruling territory right next to the United States alarmed the new president, so he made a number of moves that any shrewd head of state would.
    First, Jefferson drew a red line with France. Jefferson was a renowned Francophile—he loved France, and some even accused him of having “a womanish attachment” to the country. At the same time, he was a staunch critic of Great Britain. But he knew the threat that Napoleonic France would pose to the young nation. Writing to his envoy in France, Jefferson made clear how France’s acquisition of North American territory was being seen in the United States: “The cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France works most sorely on the U.S. … [and] reverses all the political relations of the U.S.”
    The reason this harmed U.S. political relations was because whoever controlled Louisiana would control New Orleans. Jefferson continued:"There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three-eighths of our territory must pass to market, and from its fertility it will ere long yield more than half of our whole produce and contain more than half our inhabitants. France placing herself in that door assumes to us the attitude of defiance… . The day that France takes possession of [New] Orleans … we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation." Despite Jefferson’s hatred of Britain, he now found himself threatening to join forces with his former enemy to defeat his beloved France.

    Second, Jefferson played the age-old diplomatic game of back-channel diplomacy. Despite establishing a red line, he knew that his infant country could ill-afford a war with a European superpower. So he engaged in multiple lines of communication with France. This included making use of his minister to France, Robert Livingston, but it also involved sending a more personal envoy, James Monroe, to join Livingston in his negotiations with the French.
    But Jefferson didn’t stop there. He also communicated through Pierre Samuel du Pont, a wealthy Frenchman in America with connections to the French regime. Indeed, it was du Pont who is often credited with suggesting a purchase of territory as a solution.
   Further, Jefferson made use of a French diplomat in the United States, Louis-Andre Pichon. Through Pichon, the Jefferson administration fed information to the French, raising the specter of American cooperation with the British against the French.

    Third, Jefferson had the wisdom to listen to advice contrary to his own inclinations—and that advice often came from his brilliant secretary of state, James Madison. Madison’s genius and political skills rivaled and arguably exceeded that of Jefferson’s.
    After an agreement was signed, Jefferson, a strict constructionist, worried that he was stretching the powers of the federal government by acquiring territory—an issue not addressed in the Constitution—and considered calling for a constitutional amendment. Madison, however, believed that time was of the essence, especially since he had heard rumors that Napoleon was reconsidering the deal. He successfully convinced Jefferson to accept the agreement.

This brings up the fourth lesson: Know how far you are willing to go, even if it means going past your ideological limits.
    As I said earlier, Jefferson was known as a pro-French, anti-British strict constructionist. And yet, during this episode, he threatened to side with the British against the French and then disposed with his strict constructionist tendencies, forgoing an amendment for the sake of his country’s interest. As Jefferson later wrote: " A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

With all that said, the reality of the Louisiana Purchase is that many developments cut in America’s favor that were outside of its control. These include the following:
    The largest slave uprising in modern history was occurring in Haiti, a French colony, which weakened France’s position in the Western Hemisphere—it had become a quagmire resulting in 50,000 deaths.
    The resumption of war between the British and the French in 1803, which focused Napoleon’s ambitions back on the European theater and increased his need for quick cash. The mercurial nature of Napoleon Bonaparte. He was not afraid to make an impulsive and consequential decision, namely getting rid of France’s possessions in North America.

The Haitian Revolution and the resumption of war with the British undoubtedly played a major role in convincing Napoleon to give up Louisiana. And perhaps that is the biggest lesson when it comes to deal-making: Results often come from events outside of one’s control.
   How did Jefferson secure the greatest deal in American history? He did the things that most statesmen would do: draw a red line and use multiple channels of diplomacy. He also did what some statesmen do: listen to those who disagree with you and be willing to stretch your ideological limits. But he also was the beneficiary of much good fortune. Perhaps the greatest lesson here is humility in the face of events that one cannot control.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Richard Lim is the host of "This American President," a history podcast.

Check out Richard Lim’s podcast, “This American President.”; http://www.thisamericanpresident.com/
"How George Washington’s Sterling Character Set an Example for the Ages" - Richard Lim / @ThisAmerPres / December 23, 2017; https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/12/23/george-washington-and-the-elegant-simplicity-of-character

#2287 (4/29) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Alfie Evans’s—and Britain’s—Dark Hour; A Life not Worth Living?"

"ALFIE EVAN'S—AND BRITAIN'S—DARK HOUR; A LIFE NOT WORTH LIVING?" - by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera; Breakpoint.org, April 27, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/04/breakpoint-alfie-evanss-and-britains-dark-hour/

     Honestly, I’m not sure which hour is Britain’s darkest, the Blitz of 1940 or right now.

    The recent blockbuster film “Darkest Hour” portrayed Winston Churchill’s gallant effort to save Britain from the Nazi war machine, as well as the evil ideology that fueled it—an ideology that destroyed human beings deemed inferior and unworthy of life.

Many forget that Hitler’s first target for extermination were individuals with disability. Sadly, even as the heroic British generation that kept the Nazis at bay ages and passes away, the British government today, through its healthcare system, is embracing the killing of innocents in a way that would make Hitler and his henchman proud.

Last summer, we told you about Charlie Gard, a British child with a rare genetic disorder. A London hospital decided, with the backing of the British government, that his case was hopeless, and despite his parents’ wishes, that he should be left to die. Charlie did die after the hospital withdrew mechanical ventilation.

And today, Alfie Evans is a 23-month-old toddler with a “mystery illness” that has left him in “a semi-vegetative state.” Some suspect that Alfie suffers from the same neurological disorder that afflicted Charlie Gard. Now, while that’s speculation, Alfie definitely has something else in common with Charlie: Doctors and the hospital have given up on him as well, and they’re in an indecent hurry to see him die.

And believe me, “indecent” is putting it charitably, especially when you consider that, like Charlie, Alfie’s parents wish to assume full financial and legal responsibly for Alfie’s treatment. In fact, the entire nation of Italy has, once again, lined up to help, even granting Alfie citizenship after a British court upheld the hospital’s decision to withdraw life support.

In fact, there’s “a specially-equipped plane from the Italian defense ministry . . . on standby to fly to Britain to pick up [Alfie] if he is released.” The Vatican’s pediatric hospital Bambino Gesu—“Baby Jesus” in Italian—has offered to treat Alfie at no charge. Since it’s fair to say that the Catholic Church knows a thing or two about medical care, and since allowing Alfie to get on the Italian government plane won’t cost the British treasury a single pence, this isn’t a difficult decision: Let Alfie Go!

But like Pharaoh, the more heartless and absurd Britain looks by its insistence to end Alfie’s life, the more obstinate British officials get.
    Why? Oh, you know… all that stuff we’ve heard before by those who legalize killing in various forms: they’re “acting in Alfie’s best interests.” They don’t want to “prolong his suffering.” They’re not being callous, they’re being “compassionate.”
    Their compassion is killing Alfie—who still clings to life as I record this commentary.

This nonsense brings to mind something that Flannery O’Connor wrote: “When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness,” that is, Christ, “its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber.”

As Rod Dreher rightly pointed out, this isn’t the stuff of a post-Christian nation; it’s the stuff of a “post-humane” nation. And that’s always the order this goes. A nation that rejects God untethers itself and its institutions from the only stable, solid, and trustworthy grounding for human dignity. So, we’ll continue to see in the post-Christian west post-humane things in all kinds of ways.

Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims: Charlie and Alfie won’t be the only ones.

Please pray with me that Britain changes its mind before it’s too late for Alfie and his family, and that God would use His church to dispel the darkness descending on the Sceptered Isle. [4/28: As noted above, it IS too late!]

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"Let Alfie Evans Go to Rome" - Editors | National Review | April 25, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/04/breakpoint-alfie-evanss-and-britains-dark-hour/
"Alfie Evans Foreshadows a Dark American Future" - David French | National Review | April 26, 2018; https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/

#2286 (4/28) PRO-LIFE SAT: "All Lives Matter; Including Alfie Evans"

"ALL LIVES MATTER; INCLUDING ALFIE EVANS" - Michelle Malkin / @michellemalkin / April 25, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/25/all-lives-matter-including-alfie-evans/ [NOTE: Think this can't happen in America; read the following and be reminded that this has happened and continues to happen here as well. ALSO, be sure to check out tomorrow's post #2287 for further commentary.]

Tom Evans and Kate James, parents of Alfie Evans, arrive at court, Feb. 6, 2018. (Photo: Jason Roberts/Mirrorpix/Newscom)

    When British hospital officials tried to pull the plug on 23-month-old toddler Alfie Evans on Monday night in arrogant defiance of his parents’ wishes, many Americans took to Twitter to count their blessings that they live in a country that would not allow such tyranny. “Stories like Alfie Evans make me realize how grateful I am to live in America where freedom still exists,” one young social media user wrote.

But it has happened—and continues to happen—in America. How quickly the public forgets.

     In 2005, medical experts and child welfare bureaucrats in the state of Massachusetts deemed 11-year-old Haleigh Poutre “virtually brain-dead,” in a “persistent vegetative state,” and not worth saving after she suffered such brutal beatings and sexual abuse by her stepfather that she was left in a coma.
    Doctors at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield and extermination agents at the Massachusetts Department of Social Services won a court order to remove Haleigh’s ventilator and feeding tube. They collaborated on a “treatment” schedule to starve her of nourishment and oxygen until she succumbed to “death with dignity.”
    Haleigh and higher powers had other plans. As state officials prepared to remove Haleigh’s life support, the supposedly impossible happened: She emerged from the vegetative state that all the smarty-pants in lab coats had concluded was “irreversible.” She began breathing on her own and picked up toys on command. “There has been a change in her condition,” a Department of Social Services spokeswoman grimly announced. “The vegetative state may not be a total vegetative state.”
    Like Alfie, Haleigh had an army of grassroots pro-family and pro-life supporters who helped pressure the state-sanctioned murderers and bungling bureaucrats to back down. Fast forward to 2018. At 24, Haleigh lives with adoptive, loving parents. She is confined to a wheelchair, but attends school and occupational therapy. She laughs, she smiles, she lives.

Among Haleigh’s prominent guardian angels: the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network, founded by Schiavo’s brother, Bobby Schindler, after a Florida judge ordered brain-injured Schiavo to be deprived of water and food, leading to her death by dehydration after 13 days in 2005. As Schindler noted after Haleigh’s life was saved:
    "[T]his is just one incident that made headline news. Indeed, most of the general public is completely unaware of how much these types of decisions are made every day and how our medical rights have been eroded by laws that have been changed to make it easier to deliberately kill our medically vulnerable."

Back in Britain, Alfie defied the medical professionals and survived the night off the ventilator as his parents begged court officials to take him to Rome. Benefactors have offered to pay for transportation and medical care; Italy granted Alfie citizenship.

As Alfie’s life hangs in the balance, I think of another child written off by the experts here in the U.S.: Jahi McMath, whom medical experts declared “brain dead” after a routine tonsillectomy gone wrong in 2013. Children’s Hospital Oakland pushed to have all life-sustaining medical treatment terminated; the professionals predicted quick deterioration.
   But Jahi’s mother (a professional nurse), Latasha “Nailah” Winkfield, refused to give up on her child. California declared Jahi legally brain dead, so with the Schiavo Foundation’s help, Winkfield moved with her daughter to a long-term care facility in New Jersey.
    Medical ethics writer Wesley Smith visited Jahi last fall and reported:" At the time of the tragedy, I believed … that Jahi was, indeed, dead. But I now have strong doubts. It’s nearly four years later, and Jahi’s body still has not broken down. Her skin remains smooth. There are no foul odors in her room as would be expected when a brain-dead person’s body deteriorates. She has experienced no visible bodily decline … Disabled is not dead.

So, where are all the left’s human rights champions when you need them? Once again, there have been no rallying cries from Hollywood celebrities, no tweet storms from the self-anointed guardians of children who embrace gun control in the name of saving lives and abortion in the name of choice.

Alfie’s life matters and Charlie’s life matters and Haleigh’s life matters and Jahi’s life matters because all lives matter. Parents’ rights are human rights. If we yield to the culture of death and the culture of expediency that permeate government-run health care systems around the world, no lives are safe.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Podcast: Alfie Evans’ Fight for His Life Shows the Decline of Britain" - Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / Daniel Davis / @JDaniel_Davis / April 25, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/25/podcast-alfie-evans-fight-for-his-life-shows-the-decline-of-britain
"UK Government Seeks to Play God in Denying Alfie Evans Life Support" - Monica Burke / @MonicaGBurke / April 25, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/25/uk-government-seeks-to-play-god-in-denying-alfie-evans-life-support
"Think a Charlie Gard Situation Can’t Happen in the US? Think Again" - Melissa Fausz / @LissaAnne88 / July 19, 2017; https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07/19/think-a-charlie-gard-situation-cant-happen-in-the-us-think-again/

#2285 (4/27) "A Successful Trial Period for Trump's Judges"

"A SUCCESSFUL TRIAL PERIOD FOR TRUMP'S JUDGES"  - Tony Perkins, Washington Watch, April 24, 2018; https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20180424/trial-period [AS I SEE IT: Yes, there are a lot of other things "in the news" that I could post articles about instead. But here is one that truly doesn't get much attention by the mainstream media but which will be critical regarding many issues facing our country. It should also encourage us that though "the news" may highlight the Administration's defeat on this or that issue, there are significant things happening for good that they somehow rarely choose to report on. - Stan]

    There aren't a lot of things the Senate does fast. But under President Trump, the "greatest deliberative body" has been deliberate about one thing: judges. It may not make flashy headlines, but Republicans are putting together a dream team on America's benches, just as fast as the rules (and Senate Democrats) will let them.

For Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, it's been a grind. Earlier this month, the White House sent over its 12th wave of judicial nominees, chocked-full of solid men and women who would do the Constitution proud. And while McConnell has been shattering records for confirmations, the GOP's success hasn't exactly been front-page news. As Politico points out, Republicans are quietly making history while most people aren't looking. "When the Senate is confirming judges, it often looks like the chamber is doing nothing. Cable news ignores it, the floor is often empty in a 'quorum call.'" But that's just fine with Republicans, who know that the real payoff for their work will come soon enough. "More than 30 lifetime judicial nominations are ready for the floor, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is continuing to churn them out in preparation for a long, slow [slog] on the Senate floor."

To no one's surprise, Senate liberals are pulling every procedural trick out of their sleeves to bog down the process. And while they have managed to stall the hires, Republicans aren't losing steam. Trump has already nominated 69 judges, and even with the punishing 30 hours of obstruction on each one, he still managed to confirm 12 circuit court judges. "No president had 12 confirmed in the first year. So we're putting a priority on changing the courts. And the kinds of people the president is sending up and we're confirming are relatively young and extremely bright," McConnell said.

One of those young and extremely bright judges is Kyle Duncan, a friend of Tony Perkins from Louisiana who's been an excellent litigator on range of issues, including marriage and religious liberty. Earlier today, the Senate rewarded his record by confirming him to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where everyone is certain he'll be a champion of the plain text of the law. Duncan's nomination was even supported by his liberal opponents, like LSU professor Paul Baier, who argued on the other side the Louisiana same-sex marriage case. His glowing endorsement should have left no doubt as to his impartiality.

Both of us strove mightily as adversaries. Through it all, however, I always appreciated and respected Kyle's advocacy for his client and his respect for the humanity of the same-sex couples who would be most affected by the case. While I disagreed with many of his arguments, often emphatically, I never found a trace of bias, bigotry, or any disrespect towards the same-sex individuals in the case... Kyle Duncan is a magnificent nominee for the Fifth Circuit who ought to be swiftly confirmed.

Fortunately for freedom-loving Americans, he was. By a three-vote margin, the Senate sent him to fill one of the 149 court vacancies. Of course, the president has been very clear about the type of judges that he would appoint: men and women who will interpret the Constitution and laws according to the plain meaning of the words written. There's no better example of that kind of judicial temperament than Kyle. And we applaud the Senate for recognizing it.

Meanwhile, for Republicans like John Cornyn (R-Texas), who know their party is hanging on to its majority by a thread, re-stocking the courts is priority number one. It's "one of the lasting legacies of any administration and any Congress, because these people will serve 25 to 30 more years," he explained. With the sand slipping through the hourglass on this congressional session, party leaders know what they have to do. "In terms of prioritizing our time and effort, I think [judges] should be at the top." That's because they know, as we do, that the real work of protecting the conservative agenda won't come down to Congress -- but the courts.

The urgency of confirming these judges, Arizona's Jeff Flake (R) pointed out, is also one thing Republicans can agree on. "It takes a long time, it's tough, but it's something that we can stick together on," he said. If Senator McConnell "has to use most of the week to do one nomination," Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told reporters, "he's going to pick a circuit judge almost every time." It's a long-term investment -- but one, hopefully, that voters will reward them for.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2284 (4/26) "If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting"

"IF CURRENT LAWS HAD BEEN FOLLOWED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTING" - Amy Swearer / @AmySwearer / April 23, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/23/if-current-laws-had-been-followed-there-would-have-been-no-waffle-house-shooting

Police tape surrounds the Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee, where a shooter killed four individuals before being stopped by a bystander. (Photo: Jim Brown/Image of Sport/Newscom)

    On Monday afternoon, Tennessee law enforcement officers captured a 29-year-old Illinois man suspected of opening fire on diners at a Nashville Waffle House, despite the man having had his firearms seized on multiple occasions in the last two years. Four people died and several others were wounded by the shooter—who wore nothing but a green jacket—before a  customer, also 29, heroically wrestled the firearm away and threw it over a counter. The attacker fled the scene naked and evaded police for over 24 hours before the suspect was apprehended.

As often happens in the aftermath of highly publicized shooting incidents, blame has already been placed on the lack of “common-sense gun control.” But, once again, this blame is misplaced—had already-existing laws been properly followed and enforced, this individual would not have had access to a firearm.

What We Know About the Suspect - The Waffle House suspect has a long history of mental health issues, including recent run-ins with law enforcement and an observational stay in a psychiatric unit. The timeline of concerning events, as most recently reported by major media outlets, is outlined below: ...

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state. Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable? - It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

Stricter Gun Laws Wouldn’t Have Prevented This - Like the vast majority of mass public shooters with mental health problems, the man in custody  appears to have inexplicably managed to avoid a criminal or mental health history that would have disqualified him from possessing a firearm under federal law.
     This incident certainly raises concerns about records-sharing between states. Illinois revoked the suspect’s state firearms license, meaning he was prohibited from possessing a firearm in the state of Illinois. This doesn’t, however, mean that other states like Tennessee had access to any information indicating that the suspect presented a heightened risk of danger such that he needed to remain disarmed.
    Moreover, millions of relevant disqualifying histories are likely missing from the FBI’s background check system because states can’t be compelled to submit them, and too often fail to do so. But realistically, even perfect records-sharing would only have prevented the Waffle House suspect from purchasing new firearms—which requires a background check—or from receiving firearms from a private citizen who follows the law and doesn’t transfer firearms to dangerous or disqualified individuals. It would not have prevented the accused man’s father from recklessly, and perhaps illegally, giving the guns back to his son without informing police.

Nor would prohibitions on “assault weapons”—a made up term that has no bearing on a gun’s lethality—have stopped this incident. California has long banned so-called “assault weapons,” but according to the Mother Jones mass public shooting database, California has experienced far more mass public shootings since 2000 than any other state. Last month’s shooting at a veteran’s home in Yountville was the state’s 10th mass public shooting event in the last 18 years, compared to just four in Texas and two in Tennessee.

Meanwhile, Monday afternoon in Toronto, nine people were killed and another 16 were wounded in a deliberate mass public attack. The deadly weapon was not an AR-15, or a handgun with a “high-capacity magazine.” That attacker needed only a van to cause double the carnage seen in Nashville. [Do we now need "van-control?]

Laws have the power to disarm law-abiding citizens who would obey those laws. They have no power to prevent an irresponsible parent from re-arming his son with the very guns he agreed to keep inaccessible, and from failing to inform law enforcement that an individual proven to be a danger to himself or others now has firearms.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

#2283 (4/25) "California To Ban Books? - AB 2943 an Assault on the First Amendment"

"CALIFORNIA TO BAN BOOKS? - AB 2943 AN ASSAULT ON FIRST AMENDMENT" - by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, Breakpoint.org, April 24, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/04/breakpoint-california-to-ban-books/ [AS I SEE IT: Some might say, "Well, it's just one state - California." But many very bad laws have begun in one state - often in states in the liberal West or East coasts - and have gone on to spread throughout the country. [Note the recent article about physician-assisted suicde law passing in Hawaii after spreading throughout several states in the West.] Hopefully, enough Californians will see the danger this proposed law would do for their state and possibly spread to other states. - Stan] 

     Once again in California, we see that the new sexual orthodoxy trumps the Constitution.

All Americans should be alarmed, and I mean increasingly so, about the California Assembly’s increasing disregard for the First Amendment. After all, it’s the California Assembly that attempted to require pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise the state’s “free or low-cost” abortion services, the subject of a recent Supreme Court oral argument. Even liberal Justice Sotomayor called that law “burdensome and wrong.”

But now, the California Assembly has voted to add what it calls “conversion therapy” to the list of “deceptive business practices” prohibited by state law. California already banned “conversion therapy,” at least for minors, in 2012. This new bill, AB 2943, not only extends that ban to adults, it also makes the sale of all goods and services involving “sexual orientation change efforts” an “unlawful business practice.” 
    Thus, according to this bill, you can talk to a psychotherapist about your same-sex attraction as long as the goal is “acceptance, support, and understanding” and avoiding “unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices.” But if the goal is to somehow to alter or even rein in those attractions or associated behaviors, it’s against the law.

Now by itself, this level of state interference with patient-doctor relationships raises significant constitutional issues. It’s forgotten that an important part of the rationale behind Roe v. Wade was that the right to privacy included doctors and patients being able to decide on a course of treatment without undue government interference.
    But what makes matters worse is that AB 2943 is so broadly and vaguely worded. It’s hard to predict where this thing will reach. Words like “goods,” “acceptance,” “support” and “understanding” are the legal equivalent of minefields waiting to blow up. For example, if a psychotherapist doesn’t try to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity but is, in the patients’ eyes, insufficiently accepting, supportive, and understanding, has he run afoul of AB 2943?

And what constitutes a “good?” Does an academic field of study count as a “good” or “service?” The implications for Christian colleges and universities are dire. Will a Summit Ministries conference, which teaches students they don’t need to act on same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, be illegal in California?

What about books, particularly those that endorse historic Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage, like my book with Sean McDowell? Would it be banned under this law? It’s absurd that under AB 2943, a California bookstore could sell “Mein Kampf” without legal repercussion, but not a book on changing, or even curbing the acting upon, sexual orientation. Nor is it clear which books would run afoul of AB 2943. There’s no spelled-out difference between a “how to” manual for conversion therapy and a legal and cultural analysis of the issues, like, for example, “When Harry Became Sally” by Ryan Anderson.

The bottom line is that AB 2943 is a textbook example of viewpoint discrimination.
    David French of National Review [see article link below] is right when he calls the bill “extraordinarily radical.” It should alarm us all that the obvious constitutional problems weren’t obvious to the sponsors and supporting legislators.

The California Senate will now take up the bill. If you live in California, you need to let your senator know that stifling free speech under the guise of consumer protection is beyond unacceptable. If you know someone who lives in California , send them this commentary and urge them to contact their state senator. For anyone who wants to learn more or directly contact their senators, California Family Council has set up AB2943.com.

And for all of us: We need to pray that they will find wisdom and courage to do the right thing.

 [italics and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - As John has said, this is a troubling step by California’s legislature. Pray that the state senate does not disregard the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, and that viewpoint discrimination is not allowed to take root. And as John has suggested, if you live in California, contact your state senator. If you don’t live in California but have friends and relatives who do, send them this commentary and urge them to get in touch with their senators.
"California Progressives Launch (Another) Attack on Free Speech" - David French | National Review | April 17, 2018;https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/california-progressives-launch-another-attack-on-free-speech/
"Gay 'conversion therapy' services would be banned under measure advancing in California" - John Myers | LA Times | April 19, 2018; http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gay-conversion-therapy-services-would-1524162085-htmlstory.html
The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity
- Os Guinness | InterVarsity Press | 2013 - https://colsoncenter.christianbook.com/public-square-religious-freedom-making-diversity/os-guinness/9780830837670/pd/837670?event=ESRCG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"California Considers Bill That Would Make Traditional Views on Sexuality Illegal" - Monica Burke / @MonicaGBurke / April 23, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/23/anti-first-amendment-bill-poses-imminent-threat-in-california/

#2282 (4/24) "Trump May Not Yet Have the Wall, but He’s Removing the Welcome Mat for Illegal Immigrants"

"TRUMP MAY NOT YET HAVE THE WALL, BUT HE'S REMOVING THE WELCOME MAT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" - Steven Bucci / @SBucci / April 07, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/07/trump-may-not-yet-wall-hes-removing-welcome-mat-illegals

President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on April 4 to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom)

President Donald Trump continues to confound his critics.

     The same pundits who went crazy when he first proposed a wall on the southern border now rail against him for being a failure because he has not achieved that border wall. But beyond the political theater and tweets, when one considers what Trump has actually done, there is a surprise: The wall may not be there, but neither is the welcome mat to illegal immigrants that President Barack Obama had put out. That’s progress.

     I am the grandson of four immigrants to America. I grew up in a community in suburban New York City that was made up of nearly all immigrant-related families. There were Italians, Irish, Poles, East European Jews, and—it was nearly 60 years ago—even a smattering of Hispanics and Africans. Every one of them came to America legally. Many took a great deal of time and effort to do it, but they played by the rules. In fact, that’s what made America so different from pretty much every one of their respective “old countries”—namely, things followed the rules.

In regard to immigration today, that principle has broken down. It is even harder to get to America legally, and a huge number of people seem to have said, “The heck with the rules, we’re just going to America on our own terms.” This has to stop.
     It doesn’t matter whether it’s the activist group People Without Borders, or a family who wants a better life than is currently available to them in the “old country.”

The rampant and flagrant rule-breaking has to stop. And it appears that Trump is determined to do just that. The welcome mat for immigrants is certainly still out, but the one for illegal immigrants is gone. The recent actions the administration has taken are transforming Trump’s campaign promises into policy.
    He has canceled the absurd “catch and release” policy that essentially forces law enforcement to ignore the breaking of federal immigration statutes. If you get caught, you are no longer getting a hall pass to stay in America until you get a hearing you don’t attend.
   Trump is also shoring up our overworked Border Patrol agents with National Guard troops at the border (as both of his predecessors did). This will both free up more agents to apprehend illegal immigrants, and provide them with better intelligence and surveillance, logistics, and overall coverage of the border.

In short, fewer people will be getting into the U.S. illegally, and everyone that is caught will go back.

The administration is also ramping up internal enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is going after the lawbreakers who already reside in the U.S., starting with those who have (regularly) committed additional crimes against American citizens. The pressure against the so-called “sanctuary” movement, which prohibits local or state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with ICE, is being increased.
    This pressure is not just coming from the feds. Municipalities that are tired of putting illegal immigrants before citizens are rebelling against state governments like California’s. Mayors of sanctuary cities across the nation are being challenged in the same way.

Lastly, the president has slammed the door on a deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. He previously offered an enormously “wide” path to legal citizenship for more “Dreamers” than Congress had even requested, if Congress would only aid him in securing our border. Congress said “no,” so now he has switched gears. The major motivation for young people to get here has been withdrawn. The political games are over. The Dreamers were sold out by those who claimed to support them.

Taken together, these steps by the president make it clear that the promise of the Statue of Liberty is still in place—but those who sought to pervert it into an open door to those who see no true investment in the collective American dream are wrong. The welcome mat is there for legal immigrants, but for those trying to force their way in, the door is being shut.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Steven P. Bucci, who served America for three decades as an Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, is a visiting research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

#2281 (4/23) "Trump’s Vitally Important Anti-Poverty Initiative"

TRUMP'S VITALLY IMPORTANT ANTI-POVERTY INITIATIVE- Star Parker / @UrbanCURE / April 18, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/18/trumps-vitally-important-anti-poverty-initiative/

Ivy Imboden, originally from Anchorage, Alaska, clutches a warm drink after arriving at a new tent established for the homeless in San Diego, California. (Photo: John Gastaldo/Zuma Press/Newscom)

    It takes a lot of courage for a president to target almost a quarter of the federal budget for reform in an election year. But this is exactly what President Donald Trump is doing with his executive order, “Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility.”

We’re now spending more than $700 billion per year on low-income assistance, which is more than we are spending on our national defense. And there are plenty of reasons to believe this spending is inefficient, wasteful, and counterproductive.
    Over the last half-century, some $22 trillion has been spent on anti-poverty programs and yet the percentage of poor in this nation remains unchanged. And it is not only a matter of the percentage staying the same but also that the people and families who are born poor stay that way.
The “Better Way” report produced by the House speaker’s office in 2016 reported that 34 percent of those born and raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale remain there all their lives.

The point has often been made that the greatest charitable gesture is teaching those in need to help themselves. This principle defines the president’s reforms to our anti-poverty programs and spending. Let’s make sure that every dollar spent goes to those truly in need and that those dollars are spent to maximize the likelihood that the recipients will get on their feet and become independent, productive, income-earning citizens.

The executive order directs federal agencies to review the some 80 federal anti-poverty programs, consolidate where there is redundancy and overlap, and look to reform by applying the principles of hard work and self-sufficiency.
    Needless to say, the usual left-wing megaphones, those that can’t tell the difference between compassion and spending billions of other people’s dollars, have wasted no time to go on attack.
The headline from the Southern Poverty Law Center screams, “Trump’s executive order on work requirements punishes low-income people for being poor.” Calling the executive order “heartless,” the Southern Poverty Law Center rejects the premise that there are those receiving benefits from these programs who could work but don’t.
    However, Robert Doar of the American Enterprise Institute reports that there are almost 20 million working-age Americans receiving benefits under Medicaid and food stamps who don’t work. The Better Way report notes that “44 percent of work-capable households using federal rental assistance report no annual income from wages.”

But it’s not just about work requirements. Vital to this reform project is moving programs out of Washington’s grasp and into the administrations at the state and local levels. Assistance programs need humanity and flexibility. This can only be done locally. There’s no way an army of bureaucrats in Washington can develop and implement programs for 50 million needy individuals that can properly recognize what unique individuals need to move out of poverty.
Assistance programs need to promote and embody those principles that go hand in hand with prosperity—ownership, investment, savings, and personal freedom and responsibility.

According to the Better Way report, almost 10 million Americans have no bank account and another 25 million have an account but get financial services outside of the banking system.

    When I was a young woman on welfare, I saw the destruction that occurs when assistance programs penalize work, marriage, and saving, as was the case with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Subsequently, this was reformed and transformed with great success to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

We can’t go on spending hundreds of billions of dollars of limited taxpayer funds on programs that may have been conceived with sincerity and compassion but don’t work. Trump deserves credit for exercising the courage and vision to move to fix what is broken in our anti-poverty programs. It is vital for the poor and vital for the nation.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.

#2280 (4/22) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Views of the Pews"

"VIEWS OF THE PEWS" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 27, 2018; https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20180327/views-pews

     The 2016 election should have put a lot of stories to rest -- including the supposed collapse of evangelical Christianity. A year and a half later, the media still can't wrap its head around our numbers, which continue to hold steady even when other faith groups decline. If there's a population in danger of extinction, a new analysis points out, it isn't evangelicals!

For the liberal media, who've been trying to put evangelicals on a milk carton for 30 years, the real story is the freefall of mainline Protestants. In a study of the General Social Survey, Aaron Earls insists that pundits have been focusing on the wrong demographic. If they want to explain the drop in church attendance, it's time to look somewhere else. "In the mid 1970s," Earls points out, "close to 30 percent of Americans attended a mainline Protestant church. After decades of membership loss, only 10 percent said they attended in 2016." In fact, he says, "Since 1990, there has not been a single year of growth for mainline Protestant church attendance."

Add that to the rise of the "religiously unaffiliated," (which, at 22 percent is just a couple points behind evangelicals), and some of the trends start to make sense. While America's faith landscape is changing, evangelicals have held surprisingly steady. "Since 1972, evangelical church attenders have grown from 18 percent of the population. After reaching 30 percent in 1993, the share has hovered around 25 percent, ranging from 27 to 23 percent." Some of that goes to the heart of evangelicalism, which calls us to go and make disciples of Christ. There's a natural growth component in our faith, as more people are brought to the saving love of Jesus.

Evangelicals do a better job holding on to their young people, Lisa Green explained a couple of years ago. "About two-thirds of those raised in the evangelical tradition are staying in the faith -- a rate surpassed within Christianity only by the historically black church." That's not to say there isn't work to be done. Millennials are slipping away from their faith roots at an alarming rate, thanks in large part to the liberal indoctrination they're getting in government schools and college campuses. Parents have to be increasingly vigilant, taking every opportunity to reinforce their values at home.

As for mainline churches, empty pews are just part of the problem. Empty preaching is the other. When a denomination abandons the truth or waters down Scripture's teachings, it reduces church to another hour of Dr. Phil -- which is something Americans can get without ever leaving home. That abandonment of principle is leading to a decline in membership, especially among the more liberal denominations. As more churches move away from biblical authority, their attendance suffers. Ask the Episcopal Church, whose membership is a fraction of what it once was after its leadership endorsed same-sex marriage.

That's the problem with our aggressively secular and sexualized culture -- it's chipped away at the idea that truth is absolute. And lately, too many churches are reflecting the culture instead of confronting it. On the bright side, this survey is a good opportunity for the authentic church to separate itself from the mush and stand up for the message of radical faith. Yes, we need to speak the truth in love -- but speak the truth nonetheless.

 [italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2279 (4/21) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Physician-Assisted Suicide in Hawaii Is an Attack on All of Us"

"PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE IN HAWAII IS AN ATTACK ON ALL OF US" - Monica Burke / @MonicaGBurke / April 16, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/16/physician-assisted-suicide-in-hawaii-is-an-attack-on-all-of-us [AS I SEE IT: Even as we continue to fight against legalized abortion in the courts, it's clear that the next great pro-life battle in the courts - if not already - will be this idea of "physician-assisted suicide" which will inevitably lead to euthanasia. The slippery slope in the culture of death introduced by the Supreme Court legalizing abortion 45 years ago always pointed towards ALL OF US being threatened by so-called "death with dignity" laws. Let's be praying that should the Supreme Court ever comes to rule on this subject it will have the necessary votes of justices supporting the culture of LIFE to stand against it. - Stan]

Hawaii's Democratic Gov. David Ige signed a bill on April 5 to legalize assisted suicide. (Photo: laflor/Getty Images)

     Earlier this month, Hawaii became the sixth state in the U.S. to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Proponents of the law hail the move as a step toward “death with dignity,” but this could not be further from the truth. Physician-assisted suicide is a direct attack on human dignity.

Every human life has value, not because of what one does, but because of who one is—made for reason, freedom, to love, and to be loved. Physician-assisted suicide cuts at the heart of human dignity by dismissing some lives as not worth living.
    The idea that some human beings are disposable shakes the very foundations of a free and equal society. Physician-assisted suicide sets off a chain reaction that extends well beyond the health care context. It harms all of society in a host of ways—it corrupts the practice of medicine, destroys relationships, and paves the way for even greater evils.
    This practice of discarding human life turns the practice of medicine upside down: Instead of preserving the life and promoting the comfort of the patient, it prematurely ends the life of the patient.

    In corrupting the meaning of medicine, physician-assisted suicide compromises the patient-doctor relationship. When medical healers are also agents of death, patients can no longer trust that their physician will be unilaterally committed to their life and health.

   Physician-assisted suicide further damages the broader health care context by giving insurance providers perverse incentives to provide a “cheap fix” for patients who require additional, more expensive care.

   Physician-assisted suicide also leaves patients vulnerable to pressure to end their lives, not only from their doctor or insurance provider but from family members. Families have intergenerational responsibilities to look after the young, the sick, and the aged. But the normalization of physician-assisted suicide destroys these intergenerational ties by encouraging families to view the elderly or disabled as burdens, a view which patients may then internalize themselves.

    This weakening of the young’s obligations to the old harms culture on a grand scale. Communities are made up of families, and as individual attitudes shift away from providing care to relatives in need, so too our society shifts away from an attitude of compassion toward those who are suffering.

   Even beyond these negative cultural effects, the laws themselves often come with gravely insufficient safeguards for patients.
   For instance, Hawaii’s new law requires waiting periods, witnesses to written requests, and sign-offs from physicians, yet these do little to protect patients from the pressure to kill themselves and other forms of abuse.
    When he signed the Hawaii physician-assisted suicide into law, Democratic Gov. David Ige said, “It is time for terminally ill, mentally competent Hawaii residents who are suffering to make their own end-of-life choices with dignity, grace, and peace.”

But why stop at the terminally ill? The mentally incompetent? When ending one’s life is considered a valid and even ideal option for those who are suffering, why deny that option to others who may be suffering less? Surely anyone who wants to die is already suffering to some degree. Why should they not have the same right to die?
    Now that Hawaii has accepted the principle of physician-assisted suicide, there is a clear logical path toward extending it to more and more people—not just to those who choose to die, but also to those society or family believes should die. There is no natural, logical limit to who qualifies for physician-assisted suicide, and pretty soon, the “death with dignity” mentality will expand to include euthanasia.

This has already happened in many European countries that have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Examining the state of physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in Atlantic Monthly:
    "The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the non-voluntary euthanasia of children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences."
   You heard that right: Nonvoluntary euthanasia follows almost immediately upon physician-assisted suicide—perhaps even by design.

Wherever it is legalized, physician-assisted suicide sets a troubling precedent for public policy by undermining equality before the law. If our legal system treats a subgroup of people as eligible to be killed, it would seriously compromise the natural right not to be killed. Where might this disturbing legal precedent lead?
   A lot is at stake in the debate over physician-assisted suicide. The immediate victims are the most vulnerable in society—the sick and elderly. But that also means every last one of us is vulnerable: It is only a matter of time before each one of us ages and dies. How many years until our own lives are deemed less valuable?

Ultimately, we all suffer in a culture that fails to honor the dignity of every single human life. We do ourselves a disservice when we fail to empathize with those who are suffering, to do our duty by those entrusted to our care. There is still time to reverse course. But we must act now before laws like those in Hawaii become the new norm.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Monica Burke is a research assistant in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

#2278 (4/20) "The Fall of James Comey"

"THE FALL OF JAMES COMEY" -  David Limbaugh: Apr 20, 2018; https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2018/04/20/the-fall-of-james-comey-n2472694

    I originally assumed that former FBI Director James Comey is an honorable and truthful man who was striving to be objective and avoid undue political influence. He has earned my change of mind.

Our law enforcement and judicial institutions should operate, to the extent possible, above politics to ensure equal justice under the law. The term "justice is blind" is more than a cliche. Justice, by definition, must be administered impartially, without regard to wealth, power, gender, race, religion or any other special status. The law must guide the judicial system, from start to finish -- from the decision to indict to the verdict of guilt or acquittal.

Comey presents himself as a consummate professional, a moral paragon, dedicated to the law and consciously above rank political concerns. He has systematically undermined this carefully crafted image with his unseemly forays into the public arena, his professional decisions, his public statements, his book and his interviews.

FBI officials and agents I've met have always been highly professional, discreet and circumspect -- so close to the vest that they won't even share with friends information pertaining to ongoing investigations. They want to make clear that they operate with no favoritism and that their allegiance is to justice and the law.

I assumed Comey would be no different. He initially projected a patina of professionalism, as we witnessed during parts of his news conference in which he announced he wouldn't prosecute Hillary Clinton and during his congressional testimony. He came off as consciously committed to operating above the political fray and following the law.

As his news conference unfolded, it became obvious that he was trying to be all things to all people, but instead of pleasing everyone, he alienated most. He meticulously documented the litany of damning facts against Clinton as if he were presenting a closing argument to a jury. But then he essentially told us that none of that mattered because she hadn't intended to break the law. My BS antenna started sending me strong signals, which were later confirmed when consulting the relevant statutes. He couldn't have laid out a better case for gross negligence and even willful criminal behavior, yet he chose to characterize her actions as noncriminal. If this weren't bad enough, we later learned that he drafted a statement clearing Clinton of charges two months before the FBI interviewed her in its probe. His twisting the law into a pretzel to avoid prosecuting Clinton screams that political considerations were paramount and superseded any legal analysis.

Moreover, Comey admitted in his interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that he factored the likelihood of Clinton's winning the election into his decision to publicly announce reopening her email investigation, fearing that she would immediately become an illegitimate president. He might as well have just worn a sign into his interview reading "political animal."

Comey's decision to write a tell-all book about an ongoing investigation on which he was the senior investigator and for which he could be a witness was abominable. It has gravely diminished him and the FBI, and it has contradicted his claim that he is concerned with protecting the image and integrity of the bureau. I doubt that Comey would have ever been appointed to such a position in the FBI had people known he was the type to air dirty laundry and share inside information on matters that demand discretion. Indeed, many current and former colleagues are recoiling with disdain.

Some of Comey's statements in the book and interviews were particularly inappropriate. His duty of professionalism didn't end when he left office. His comments on Donald Trump's appearance were especially petty, more fitting for a teenage Twitter thread than from a former high-ranking law enforcement official.

Even worse was his reckless opinion to Stephanopoulos that it's "possible" that Trump obstructed justice, even though he admitted there is no evidence. Then there were his gratuitous statements that the Russians may have something on Trump and that it's possible the alleged incident involving prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room happened. How could anyone watch that interview and still respect Comey's intellectual honesty?

Free speech guarantees certainly apply to this publicity hound, but they don't insulate him from our reasoned opinion that he has no business saying Trump behaved like a mob boss or that he is morally unfit to serve.

Comey's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that he made "serious mistakes," that he won't admit his mistakes and that both Democrats and Republicans called for his termination. Former attorneys general, judges and lead prosecutors believe that Comey violated his duty to preserve, protect and defend the FBI. He violated Justice Department policies and tradition. And he leaked four memos, at least one of which was classified, to a friend for publication instead of turning them over to investigators.

I suspect that Comey began writing this book expecting financial profit and professional and personal vindication. I'm afraid he'll have to settle for the big bucks alone. I would feel sorry for him if he weren't so sanctimonious.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

#2277 (4/19) "New National Test Scores Show Betsy DeVos Was Right About Public Schools"

"NEW NATIONAL TEST SCORES SHOW BETSY DEVOS WAS RIGHT ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS" - Mary Clare Amselem / @MCAmselem / April 17, 2018 / https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/17/new-national-test-scores-show-betsy-devos-was-right-about-public-schools/

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' claim that federal intervention hasn't improved outcomes for students is based on the most recent data. (Photo: Amy Beth Bennett/TNS/Newscom)

     Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ recent interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” caused quite a bit of backlash from critics. As my colleague Jonathan Butcher has written, “60 Minutes” ignored many of the facts about the state of education in America. Response to the interview drew quite a bit of criticism of DeVos and her policy solutions.

Perhaps one of the most pivotal moments came when she suggested that the United States’ heavy federal investment in education has not yielded any results. Stahl hit back, asserting that school performance has been on the rise. But the latest government data show otherwise. According to the recently released 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation’s “report card,” we now have more evidence that DeVos was correct.

In fact, recent scores show virtually no improvement over 2015 scores. Eighth-grade reading saw a single point improvement over 2015 scores (10 points is considered equivalent to a grade level), while all other categories saw no improvement. These lackluster results come on the heels of declines on the 2015 assessment, suggesting the beginning of a trend in the wrong direction for academic outcomes.

Indeed, Stahl’s claim that the state of public schools has gotten better simply doesn’t hold up to the data. It fact, DeVos is entirely correct to point out that public school outcomes have not meaningfully improved, and that our nation’s heavy federal intervention in K-12 education has failed to help the problem.

As Heritage Foundation education fellow Lindsey Burke writes:
   "Forty-nine out of 50 states were stagnant on the 2017 report card, and achievement gaps persist. Historically, federal education spending has been appropriated to close gaps, yet this spending—more than $2 trillion in inflation-adjusted spending at the federal level alone since 1965—has utterly failed to achieve that goal."
   " Increasing federal intervention over the past half-century, and the resulting burden of complying with federal programs, rules, and regulations, have created a parasitic relationship with federal education programs and states, and is straining the time and resources of local schools."

Indeed, for decades, Washington has poured billions of dollars into the public education system under the assumption that more federal spending will close achievement caps and improve the academic outcomes of students. With mounting evidence that more federal spending is not the answer, it may be time to consider other policy approaches.

DeVos is correct to suggest school choice as a solution to lackluster school performance. Parents who cannot afford to send their child to a school that is the right fit deserve to have options. As DeVos told Stahl:
   "Any family that has the economic means and the power to make choices is doing so for their children. Families that don’t have the power, that can’t decide, ‘I’m gonna move from this apartment in downtown whatever to the suburb where I think the school is gonna be better for my child.’ If they don’t have that choice, and they are assigned to that school, they are stuck there. I am fighting for the parents who don’t have those choices. We need all parents to have those choices.

In light of recent evidence from the nation’s report card, “60 Minutes” and other school choice critics should consider that DeVos was correct in her framing of problems facing the nation’s schools and is on the right track with possible solutions—namely, that empowering parents is the right approach to improving American education.

[italics and colored emphasis mine]

Mary Clare Amselem is a policy analyst in education policy at The Heritage Foundation.

"Nation’s ‘Report Card’ Shows Federal Intervention Has Not Helped Students" - Lindsey Burke / @lindseymburke / April 10, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/10/nations-report-card-shows-federal-intervention-has-not-helped-students/

#2276 (4/18) “'When Is It Right to Die?' - Suicide and the Body of Christ"

“'WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO DIE?' - SUICIDE AND THE BODY OF CHRIST" - by: Eric Metaxas / Stan Guthrie, Breakpoint.org, April 3, 2018; http://www.breakpoint.org/2018/04/breakpoint-right-die/

When it comes to America’s suicide epidemic, we really are our brothers’ keepers.

    Today I want to speak with you about something that’s deadly serious—America’s suicide epidemic. If you think this doesn’t apply to you and you can just go on with your day, please hear me out. And for those of you who have thought about ending your own life—or you know someone who has—hang on, because there is hope.

First, the horror. According to the New York Times, the annual suicide rate in the U.S. surged by 24 percent between 1999 and 2014, giving us our highest suicide rate in 28 years. And it’s only getting worse. The National Center for Health Statistics reports that the number of suicides rose from almost 43,000 in 2014 to just about 45,000 in 2016. Meanwhile, the American Center for Suicide Prevention says that suicide was the 10th leading cause of death in 2014, with an average of 121 “successful” suicides every day. An amazing 8.3 million American adults reported having suicidal thoughts in the last year.

My friend Joni Eareckson Tada, the author of the newly updated book, “When Is It Right to Die?” says loneliness is a key contributor to America’s suicide epidemic for many people—and that’s an issue all believers in Jesus Christ can address.
    Once, as Joni writes in a piece for Christianity Today, she was addressing a class of high-schoolers about euthanasia, suicide, and the students’ responsibilities. One young man described how his mom was getting demoralized by caring for his sister, who had developmental delays. He said society should “do something.” Then Joni looked at him from her wheelchair and said, “How have you helped alleviate the burden? … Maybe your mom wouldn’t be so demoralized, maybe she wouldn’t feel so stressed or burdened, if you rolled your sleeves up a little higher to help.”  The student chuckled and said, “I see your point.”

And that point is that suicide is everyone’s business. Joni says that “the sick and the well are inextricably connected in community. Those on the margins—the depressed, the ill, and the dying—need us. But the converse is also true: We need them, too.” How so? What Joni calls “the gutsy choice to face suffering head-on”—instead of giving up—“forces others…to sit up and take notice . . . When people observe perseverance, endurance, and courage, their moral fiber”—and society’s moral fiber—“is reinforced.”

     So however we feel, no matter how bleak our circumstances—and they might seem very dark indeed—thank God, we don’t have to go it alone. And as members of Christ’s body, we are needed. We can share one another’s burdens and sufferings—depression, terminal illness, bereavement, job loss, mental illness, or whatever. We may need professional help, too, and if you need it, please seek it out. But also seek fellowship in Jesus. A dear friend of mine could tell you how important the prayers of his brothers and sisters in Christ were when he suffered through a major depressive episode just recently.

   Of course, our ultimate hope is the Lord Jesus Christ, who “died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” (2 Cor. 5:15) Share that hope with someone who is suffering. Or hold on to that hope yourself. 

[And do come to BreakPoint.org for some very helpful resources—including Joni’s revised and updated book, “When Is It Right to Die?” And if you’d like to come hear Joni—along with me, John Stonestreet, Andrew Peterson, and others—you’ve got to come to the Wilberforce Weekend, May 18-20 in our nation’s capital. We’re filling up, so visit WilberforceWeekend.org to register today.]


[italics and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES - It’s important for those who are suffering with suicidal thoughts to seek professional help. But, as Eric has urged, it’s just as important for believers to provide help and encouragement to so many in the Body of Christ who deal with issues that lead them to contemplate suicide. Click on the links below to learn how to provide help and support for those in need, and  to hear more of Joni Eareckson Tada’s story. You can also order a copy of her updated book “When Is It Right to Die?” from the online bookstore.
When Is It Right to Die?: A Comforting and Surprising Look at Death and Dying- Joni Eareckson Tada | Zondervan Publishing | January 2018 - http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/Product.asp?sku=9780310349945
"Why Suicide Is Everybody’s Business" - Joni Eareckson Tada | Christianity Today | March 2018; http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2018/march/joni-eareckson-tada-suicide-everybodys-business-euthanasia.html
"Suicide from a Christian perspective" - Ethics And Religious Liberty Commission | erlc.com | October 14, 2014; https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/suicide-from-a-christian-perspective

#2275 (4/17) "State Dept. Has a Captive Audience in Jailed Pastor"

"STATE DEPT. HAS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE IN JAILED PASTOR" - Tony Perkins, Washingto Update, April 16, 2018; https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA18D24&f=WU18D08 [AS I SEE IT: Let's commit to pray regularly for Pastor Brunson's release. Also, as you'll read below, let's pray for the confirmation of a good man, Mike Pompeo, to be Sec. of State, despite the unjust interrogation by liberals in the Senate. - Stan]

    UPDATE/April 16 - The American Center for Law and Justice: The situation just took a bleak turn for Pastor Andrew. After one day of trial, the Turkish judge refused to release Pastor Andrew.
The judge instead delayed the trial until May 7th and ordered that Pastor Andrew be thrown in a notoriously overcrowded and grim prison.Instead of being returned to the prison where he had been held most recently, the judge ordered Pastor Andrew to be taken back to an overcrowded and extremely grim prison where he was held initially. As you can imagine, the news is devastating to Pastor Andrew and his family.

For 50-year-old pastor Andrew Brunson, the last year and a half have been like a bad dream. The North Carolina missionary and his family had built a life in Turkey, only to watch government officials tear it all apart. After 23 years of serving the Mediterranean people, he's been thrown behind bars -- left to wonder if he'll ever see America, or his family, again.

For Brunson, who'd devoted two decades to pastoring a church in Izmir, the charges were almost unbelievable. Accused of spying, conspiracy, and terrorism, the Black Mountain native was taken to prison, where he spiraled into depression. "The start was very, very difficult," his daughter tells reporters. Losing hope -- and more than 50 pounds -- Brunson had no choice but to wait for American officials to intervene. Days ticked by, then months. Andrew missed his daughter's wedding and another's graduation.

Back on American soil, Norine desperately worked for her husband's freedom -- a goal that seems much more realistic under this White House. Last year, the Brunsons had a major breakthrough in their case when then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson agreed to meet with Norine, and then later when U.S. officials -- including 78 members of Congress -- personally called for Andrew's release. Although local authorities haven't been able to produce a scrap of evidence tying the Brunsons to a terrorist organization, he still faces up to 35 years in a Turkish jail. The concern, insiders say, is that authorities will try to keep Brunson in the country to use as a bargaining chip with the President.

In the trial that started today [April 16th], Brunson told the court, "I don't accept any of the allegations or accusations. I did not engage in any illegal activity. I had no relations with anyone engaged in such activity. I am a Christian pastor. I did not join an Islamic movement. Their aims and mine are different." When Andrew did take the stand, he was almost certainly comforted by the presence of two key U.S. leaders: Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom Sam Brownback and home state Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Both men flew to Turkey to attend the trial and add to the growing international pressure for Brunson's release.

Days earlier, a man who could be the most instrumental player in Andrew's release was sitting in a hearing of his own. Unfortunately for Mike Pompeo, Trump's pick for Secretary of State, he was being interrogated -- not on his ideas for helping prisoners like this pastor -- but about his views on sexuality. On the eve of America's targeted missile strike on Syria, Senator Cory Booker's (D-N.J.) biggest concern wasn't the threats our nation is facing, but whether Pompeo shared his radical LGBT agenda. To his credit, Mike stood his ground, refusing to let the Democrats' new litmus test for public service rattle him.

Of course, conservatives have watched this new McCarthyism evolve in confirmation hearings from Russell Vought to Amy Barrett. We've seen our own prophecies about the fallout over same-sex marriage come true in every public servant who's marginalized for mainstream views. The only difference in the Left's hostility is that now, Democrats are done hiding it. As Daniel Davis points out in the Daily Signal:
     "In the world of Cory Booker, there is no place for Mike Pompeo -- except perhaps, in a re-education class. Certainly not in the Cabinet. This sort of social ostracization and occupational discrimination was coming, but liberals long denied it. They assured us that same-sex marriage would make the world more tolerant, that conservative holdouts would have nothing to fear, and that the progressive future would have a place for everyone... These liberals either failed to see just how coercive their movement would become, or they knew better and were just placating America while cultural changes gained steam -- and then jumped on board the train."

Even more amazingly, Pompeo's views are completely mainstream. In fact, he was such a consensus choice for CIA director last year that more than a dozen Democrats voted for him. Now, those same people, like Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), are using their animus as an excuse to pull the rug out from an excellent candidate that even the Washington Post urges the Senate to confirm. "I did vote him for CIA director," Kaine said over the weekend. "He has an intel background that I thought suited him for the position. But look," he went on. "We have a President that is anti-diplomacy. And I worry that Mike Pompeo has shown the same tendency to oppose diplomacy. He was not just against the Iran deal, when he was a House member, but he spoke about the relative ease of wiping out Iran's nuclear capacity with a bombing run."

Obviously, Democrats won't be satisfied until the president's nominees either recant their faith or insist on having none at all. It's time for the Left to end its campaign of intolerance. If you haven't already, join the 25,000 Americans who've signed our petition to the U.S. Senate, protesting the treatment of Christians like Mike Pompeo. [Go to https://www.frc.org/ and the section "Take Action."] 

As FRC's Travis Weber argues in his new op-ed for the Hill, "In his long history of public service, Mike Pompeo has been scrupulous to treat every human being with dignity and respect. His critics should seek to understand this, instead of resorting to personal attacks. They would find that he is a competent and principled person who is well-qualified to fill the role of our chief diplomat, and will seek to unite and serve all of us in representing our common interests on the world stage."

[italics emphasis mine]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What Mike Pompeo understands about religion and national security" - by Travis Weberm, 04/14/18; http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/383140-what-mike-pompeo-understands-about-religion-and-national-security
"Cory Booker’s Inquisition Into Marriage Views Is About Keeping You Silent" - Daniel Davis / @JDaniel_Davis / April 13, 2018; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/13/cory-bookers-inquisition-into-marriage-views-is-about-keeping-you-silent/