# 1552 (4/7) "America’s Military Is in Much Worse Shape Than You’d Think"

"AMERICA'S MILITARY IS IN MUCH WORSE SHAPE THAN YOU'D THINK" - John Sullivan/ Justin Johnson / March 25, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/25/americas-military-is-in-much-worse-shape-than-youd-think/ [AS I SEE IT: For as long as I can remember, Americans have always assumed that our defense is somehow more than adequate. This latest report by our military leaders shows that we can no longer have that illusion. When you consider that one of the main reasons for even having a federal government is to provide for "the common defense," we are increasingly coming to where that defense will be inadequate. The day may soon come when we will be barely able to defend ourselves let alone help our allies, as we have always been counted on to do for the longest time. - Stan]

America’s military is dangerously weak and unprepared today, and it’s not getting better. At least that’s what top military leaders told Congress recently. Unfortunately, the testimony of these top generals and admirals did not get the attention it deserved.

For the last 15 years, the United States military has not prepared for conflict with a near peer competitor like Russia or China. General Mark Milley, chief of staff of the Army, shared his worries with Congress, explaining that the Army would be able to handle a serious conflict but “not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people would expect to defend them.” In other words, because soldiers are not adequately prepared, the U.S. Army would either be late to arrive to a conflict (due to more time for training) or they would send soldiers into harm’s way unprepared.

These are not issues isolated to the Army. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Robert Neller, when commenting on the ability to meet requirements in a major conflict, said the Marine Corps “would be able to do that but probably not within a timeframe that current plans call for [them] to arrive to participate in that conflict.” The chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, also admitted that there is “a readiness debt that we have had difficulty pulling out of or even making progress on as the funding levels are what they are and the security environment continues to put demands on the force.”

Almost two decades of conflict and years of budget constraints have taken their toll on the military, both in terms of deferred modernization and insufficient readiness. In the 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength, the American military received a grade of “marginal”. We can see why in one news story after another. Only one third of Army Brigade Combat Teams are battle ready.

Half of the Air Force’s combat forces are insufficiently prepared for a high-end conflict. The Navy is forced to put more strain on its sailors and ships by doing eight to ten month deployments, instead of the more manageable 6 months.

All Marine Corps aircraft either need to be replaced or recapitalized. Not to mention, the Marines’ current level of Class A mishaps is nearly double the ten year average. Neller confessed that “the simple fact is that we don’t have enough airplanes to meet the training requirements for the entire force.”

Last year, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs said the planned defense budget was “the lower ragged edge of manageable risk need to execute our nation’s defense strategy.” The suggested base defense budget at the time was $573 billion. This year’s defense budget request is more than $20 billion lower. If last year’s estimate was the lower ragged edge, this year’s budget request surely is below that edge of manageable risk.

As Sen.John McCain, R-Ariz., commented recently:“I fear it means that our military is becoming less and less able to deter conflict and if, God forbid, deterrence does fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our nation will deploy young Americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more and ultimately claim more American lives than it otherwise would have.” This fear is echoed by Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James who stated that, “history teaches us that the consequences of insufficient preparation are the prolonging of conflict and the increased loss of life.”

Congress needs to take action to relieve the stress being placed on the defense budget. While men and women in uniform accept a level of risk when they join, Congress and the American people need to provide the funds necessary to minimize this risk.

Gen. Welsh, chief of staff of the Air Force, put it best when saying the men and women of our armed forces “are willing to pay the price if they think it’s important, if they think the nation supports them, if they think they’ll have the resources and the equipment and the training to be the best in the world at what they do. That’s all they ask.”

A fully adequate defense budget needs to be responsibly funded by Congress. National defense is an explicit Constitutional priority. Congress should recognize their constitutional duty and fully support our war fighters.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

John Sullivan is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. Justin T. Johnson specializes in defense budgets and policies for The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security and Foreign Policy.

"House Budget Goes in the Wrong Direction on Defense" - Justin Johnson / March 16, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/16/house-budget-goes-in-the-wrong-direction-on-defense/

# 1551 (4/6) "Fallen Heroes and a Missing Remedy"

"FALLEN HEROES AND A MISSING REMEDY" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, April 04, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16D02&f=WU16D01[AS I SEE IT: Please join me in praying for our troops, and esp. those who so struggle they attempt suicide. Pray that God would lead each such one to a believer who can offer him/her the comfort of Christ. May each find the strength they need to overcome the struggle they face. - Stan]

The men and women who protect American lives continue to take their own, as the crisis of military suicide shows no signs of slowing. For the seventh straight year, the number of service members who killed themselves topped 200, the Pentagon announced Friday in a grim report about the internal war our troops are fighting. A stunning 265 active-duty service men and women [in the past year] were casualties of the struggle that has taken an unprecedented number of our troops since 2008. The spike in suicides continues to worry administration officials, who fail to consider that many of their own policies may be to blame. Once again, the Army mourned the biggest losses, burying more than 120 soldiers whose personal struggles were ultimately too much to bear.

And while the administration insists it's committed to finding solutions to this epidemic, its five million dollar investment into the problem can't compete with one of the greatest weapons in the fight: faith. "Reducing suicide risk entails creating a climate that encourages service members to seek help," said a Pentagon spokesman. Unfortunately for too many of these troubled troops, the help most could use is the comfort of a God who is no longer welcome in much of military culture. 

For most troops, the last seven years have been an emotional roller coaster of budget cuts, low morale, LGBT indoctrination, overseas threats, and sexual politics. Stressed and stretched thin, most service members say they're fighting another foe: distrust and dissatisfaction. The only thing in shorter supply than funding is morale, as troops admit to the greatest burnout in recent memory.

Meanwhile, the one comfort our brave men and women used to have -- their faith -- is being wrenched from their hands and driven out of the service. By not just undermining -- but punishing -- the belief that most troops cling to in difficult times, the Obama administration may have taken away the military's greatest deterrent to suicide. Now, without the solace that faith provides, more service members have nowhere to turn. The crackdown has led people like the Coast Guard's Rear Admiral William Lee to question whether he should even point a 24-year-old to the meaning his life was missing. Lee told the story a couple of years ago that he felt strongly that he should give a soldier, who had tried and failed to commit suicide, a Bible. Under the current climate of hostility, he knew he could face consequences. "The lawyers tell me that if I do that, I'm crossing the line. I'm so glad I've crossed that line so many times."

It's time for the Pentagon to look at the big picture on military suicide and realize that driving out faith is more than unconstitutional -- it's depriving men and women dealing with the stress of military life from the help they need.

 [bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

# 1550 (4/5) "...Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’"

"16 Democrat AGs Begin INQUISITION AGAINST 'CLIMATE CHANGE DISBELIEVERS’" - Hans von Spakovsky / Cole Wintheiser/ April 04, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaks alongside former Vice President Al Gore. Neither Gore nor the “AGs United for Clean Power” has any concern over the First Amendment or the stifling of scientific debate. (Photo: Reuters/Mike Segar/Newscom)

Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarch’s, punishing the “heretics” with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution.

One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater.

As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st century—something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago.

Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion. Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”
The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” ...

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory. Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California, respectively, have already launched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questioned climate change. Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that “uncovered” this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism.

Standing next to Schneiderman throughout the press conference was the grand inquisitor himself, former Vice President Al Gore, who has stepped into the role of Tomas de Torquemada. Gore, who narrated a climate change propaganda film in 2006 entitled “An Inconvenient Truth,” praised the coalition, stating that “what these attorneys general are doing is exceptionally important.” Neither Gore nor the “AGs United for Clean Power” has any concern over the First Amendment or the stifling of scientific debate. When pressed on the effect such investigations and prosecutions will have on free speech, General Schneiderman claimed that climate change dissenters are committing “fraud” and are not protected by the First Amendment.

This comes on top of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitting that the Justice Department is discussing the possibility of pursing civil actions against climate change deniers, and that she has already “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which” federal law enforcement could take action.

As we have said before, “[l]evel-headed, objective prosecutors should not be interested in investigating or prosecuting anyone over a scientific theory that is the subject of great debate.” And yet that is exactly what the AGs United for “Political” Power are going to do.

Fortunately, there are other state attorneys general who understand the importance of the rule of law as opposed to what they say is an “ambition to use the law to silence voices with which we disagree.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said they would not be joining this coalition:

Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do. This scientific and political debate is healthy and should be encouraged. It should not be silenced with threats of criminal prosecution by those who believe that their position is the only correct one and that all dissenting voices must therefore be intimidated and coerced into silence. It is inappropriate for State Attorneys General to use the power of their office to attempt to silence core political speech on one of the major policy debates of our time.

Although the Spanish Inquisition ended almost 200 years ago, the American Climate Change Inquisition appears to be just getting started. By threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe their climate theories, the attorneys general in this coalition are trying to end the debate over climate change, declaring any dissent to be blasphemy regardless of what many scientists believe.

This strikes a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Cole Wintheiser is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

"The Inconvenient Facts the Media Ignore About Climate Change" - 
Rep. Lamar Smith / February 26, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/the-inconvenient-facts-the-media-ignores-about-climate-change/
"... Silencing debate is contrary to the scientific method. If these groups were confident about their arguments, they would welcome more debate to test their theories. However, some media outlets, such as the Los Angeles Times, have changed their policies and no longer accept letters to the editor from those who question human-made climate change. That this would happen in a democracy where free speech is enshrined in the Constitution is unbelievable. Scientists who are not alarmists agree that climate change is a complex subject with many variables. But the liberal national media instead chooses to focus on human contributions and usually fails to provide both sides..."
" 'US Bound by Climate Change Deal That Skirts Constitution, House Panel Told'" - 
Natalie Johnson / Feb. 03, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/03/us-bound-by-climate-change-deal-that-skirts-constitution-house-panel-told/
"Science Agency Eyes Climate Change Professor’s Use of Millions From Taxpayers" - 

Kevin Mooney / March 23, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/science-agency-eyes-climate-change-professors-use-of-millions-from-taxpayers/

# 1549 (4/4) "A Legacy of Broken Promises: Obamacare Turns 6"

"A LEGACY OF BROKEN PROMISES: OBAMACARE TURNS 6" - Robert Moffit/ March 23, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/23/a-legacy-of-broken-promises-obamacare-turns-6/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obamacare, a partisan product full of broken promises, is six years old. Burdened by mounting problems, it’s not mellowing with age. Notwithstanding the president’s notorious promise, millions of Americans have lost their health care plans, and, for those faced with narrowing provider networks, their choice of doctors is also shrinking. 

Washington lobbyists’ power and influence have grown, as Obamacare has become a poster child for the triumph of special interest politics—just as its opaque regulatory regime has become an engine of crude political favoritism. If you were eagerly awaiting reduced health insurance costs, or a reprieve from middle class taxation, or secure access to future Medicare benefits, you can forget that.

Here are five serious problems plaguing Obamacare:
     1) Rising Premiums - More than six years ago, President Barack Obama promised that his reform would cut typical family costs by $2,500 annually. In 2014, when the law went fully into effect, folks buying plans in the “exchanges” were rattled by rate shock. In 13 states, premiums for 50 year-olds jumped by 50 percent or more; in 11 states, premiums for 27-year-olds more than doubled. In 2015, the growth declined from the 2014 high plateau. But in 2016, double-digit increases are back. HealthPocket, a firm comparing rates and benefits, projects an average 12-percent premium increase in exchanges this year. Ordinary Americans will soon find out.

     2) Burdensome Taxes - The president promised that he would not sign a tax increase on the middle class. But the bulk of Obamacare’s gaggle of taxes (more than $832 billion over the next ten years) is passed onto middle-class individuals and families—either directly or indirectly. This includes the taxes on insurance, drugs and medical devices, and even the 40-percent excise tax on “high value” health plans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that as many as 20 percent of all workers could be impacted by that excise tax in 2025. And even the new 3.8-percent Medicare payroll tax on “rich” persons making over $200,000 a year, will, over time, reach 80 percent of all taxpayers, as the Medicare Trustees report.
     And speaking of taxes, the president boldly insisted that the individual mandate penalty—which he opposed while running for office—was not a tax. His lawyers argued that it was a tax. In 2012, the Supreme Court agreed with the president’s lawyers. No matter. CBO says that 69 percent of the penalty will be paid by persons making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $47,080.

     3) The Taxpayer Subsidy Mess - The law’s health insurance subsidy program is a mind-numbing mess. If you make more than $47,080, you don’t get a taxpayer subsidy to offset your rising premium costs. And if you do, you might not get the right amount and end up indebted to the feds. In 2014, an estimated 50 percent of exchange enrollees owed money back to the government.

     4) Breathtaking Deductibles - If you make more than $29,425, the Obamacare deductibles can be breathtaking. Single persons buying a low-cost “bronze” plan can face an average deductible of roughly $5,300, and for the next cheapest “silver” plan, the average deductible is $2,500. Job-based plans, by contrast, have a deductible of about $1,000. Beg your boss to keep that plan you like.

     5) Medicare Payment Cuts - The president insisted that the law’s Medicare payment cuts would not harm seniors. But the Medicare Trustees, responsible for reporting on the program’s financing, tell a different story: “By 2040, simulations suggest that approximately half of hospitals, 70 percent of skilled nursing facilities and 90 percent of home health agencies would have negative total facility margins, raising the possibility of access and quality of care issues for Medicare beneficiaries” (emphasis mine).

What We’re Left With
     Six years ago, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told America that if we passed Obamacare, we would find out what was in it “away from the fog of the controversy.” We sure did. Today, taxpayers are forced to fund abortion, while federal officials are obsessed with violating Americans’ personal freedom of conscience and restricting their religious liberty.

The president’s broken promises have multiplied over the past six years, and now we’re faced with rising costs; bigger middle-class tax bills; and a partisan product bedeviled by boondoggles, design flaws, and unworkable provisions. In 2017, we can, and must, do better.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Robert E. Moffit, a seasoned veteran of more than three decades in Washington policy making, is a senior fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies. Read his research.

# 1548 (4/3) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "Many Beautiful Things - THE GIFT OF SIGHT"

"Many Beautiful Things - THE GIFT OF SIGHT" - By: Eric Metaxas|Breakpoint.org: March 9, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28978

As a biographer by trade, I love telling the stories of lives well lived. And one new documentary film tells one such story beautifully.

Suppose you were given the choice between using your God-given gifts in a way that would make you famous, or in a way that would guarantee a life lived in obscurity. That’s the choice one Victorian-era artist had to make. And her decision is the focus of the wonderful new documentary called “Many Beautiful Things.”

Lilias Trotter had a gift for seeing beauty and for capturing it in exquisite watercolors. Trotter was mentored by the greatest art critic of the period, John Ruskin. He told her that if she would devote her life to her painting, she could become one of the best artists of her time.

Lilias Trotter was torn over this. As tempting as the prospect was, she had other gifts that she felt called by God to use. Her gift of sight involved more than just her art; as one of the experts in the film tells us, she had “a rare gift for seeing a need.” She spent much of her time helping prostitutes and other needy women—time that Ruskin thought should have been spent on her painting.

In the end, Lilias Trotter chose the kingdom of God over artistic fame. She decided to become a missionary to Algeria, and when a denominational mission board refused her application because of health issues, she and two friends simply went there on their own. She never gave up her art—indeed, it seemed to be reborn, as she filled sketchbooks with beautiful paintings of her new surroundings. But she spent the bulk of her time ministering to women and children in need.

After Lilias Trotter died, she was all but forgotten. Only recently has she been rediscovered by biographer Miriam Rockness. It was Rockness who contacted filmmaker Laura Waters Hinson—which is a name you might remember, as we’ve talked before about her great Rwanda documentary “As We Forgive.”

Hinson’s new film is full of Trotter’s paintings, brought to life through the skillful addition of depth and animation, until it almost feels as if we’re walking through some of her landscapes. Experts on Trotter tell her story, and actors Michelle Dockery (of “Downton Abbey”) and John Rhys-Davies (of “The Lord of the Rings”) read from Trotter’s and Ruskin’s writings. The viewer comes away deeply moved by this woman’s talent and by her courageous choice to put others before herself.

The film makes clear that Lilias Trotter did not see her path as a universal one. There are those who are called by God to make art or music or writing their career. But Trotter knew that was not her calling.

Paradoxically, her obedience to God gave her great freedom from the restrictions and boundaries that most women of her era dealt with. She simply went where God called her to go and did what He called her to do, and though she dealt with great obstacles, she also found great joy.

What a difference from many of us today. Some Christians will do almost anything for fame, telling themselves that whatever they do is justified as long as it gets God’s name out in public. But as Trotter knew, God doesn’t need us to be His PR people; He only requires us to be faithful.

“Many Beautiful Things” is now available on DVD and as a digital download from the website ManyBeautifulThings.com. Copies of Trotter’s paintings and writings are available for sale there as well. If this film finally brings Lilias Trotter the fame that her art deserves, that will be a great thing. But I think she might say that, in a life devoted to serving God, she already received a far greater reward.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"Many Beautiful Things" - documentary website: https://manybeautifulthings.com/

"Promoting the Good, the True, and the Beautiful: A Q&A with Filmmaker Laura Waters Hinson" - Warren Cole Smith | BreakPoint.org | March 9, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/28983

"'Many Beautiful Things': Lilias Trotter and the Theology of the Cross" - Rebecca Miller | Christ & Pop Culture | March 4, 2016; http://christandpopculture.com/many-beautiful-things-lilias-trotter-and-the-theology-of-the-cross/
"...While all of us who write, paint, sketch, make music, and play sports must come to our own conclusions about how we live out our calls, we, like Trotter, must all wrestle with the powerful cultural pressure to place success and glory as the highest value of our lives. Resisting a theology of glory, we must dare to believe God is in the poor, the servant, the desolate, the forsaken, and the mourner. God chooses children, little brothers, old ladies, and unimportant folks. God is in the silence, not the wind, the earthquake, or the fire. If we come to idolize glory, we might miss out on experiencing a beauty that is peculiar to places of the cross, a beauty like rises from the desert dust like a hardy sand lily."

"Lilias Trotter: Missionary, Artist" - The Conservation Center | February 13, 2014; http://www.theconservationcenter.com/article/2084427-lilias-trotter-missionary-artist

A Passion for the Impossible: The Life of Lilias Trotter -  Miriam Huffman Rockness | Discovery Books | July 2003;http://www.breakpoint.org/tp-home/blog-archives/blog-archives/entry/4/7294

"'As We Forgive' Premieres Today on PBS" - Catherine Larson|BreakPoint.org | July 15, 2009;http://www.breakpoint.org/tp-home/blog-archives/blog-archives/entry/4/7294

# 1547 (4/2) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Why Donald Trump Saying Women Should be “Punished” for Abortions Hurts the Pro-Life Cause"

"WHY DONALD TRUMP SAYING  WOMEN SHOULD BE "PUNISHED" FOR ABORTIONS HURTS THE PRO-LIFE CAUSE" - Micaiah Bilger, Mar. 31, 2016 |http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/31/why-donald-trump-saying-women-should-be-punished-for-abortions-hurts-the-pro-life-cause/ [AS I SEE IT: This recent incident is a clear example of why Donald Trump is just not prepared to be a pro-life President with conservative views. (These so-called "misspeaks" make it hard to believe that Mr. Trump's views are truly heart convictions.) It may be fine to be a "non-politician" but one still has to have well-thought through positions on key issues in order to give leadership to our country. It's one thing to spout generalized statements but unless one's positions are fully considered, these kinds of gaffes are bound to happen. Someone who seeks the Presidency must surely be able to make more thoughtful remarks. - Stan]
  
The issue of whether women who have abortions should be punished has been a favorite gotcha question posed to pro-life candidates for years.

It is admittedly a difficult question, and one that deserves a lot of thought. Most pro-lifers lean toward the side of compassion and say women should not be punished. Due, in part, to high rates of coercion, women often are victims of abortion along with their unborn babies. Major pro-life groups agree. They argue that historically abortion doctors are the ones who have been, and should be, punished for the crime because they are the ones knowingly and intentionally killing unborn babies.

But the pro-abortion mainstream media doesn’t play fair with pro-lifers, and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump should know this by now.

In an interview Wednesday with MSNBC, which is no friend to pro-lifers, host Chris Matthews asked Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump if he thought women should be punished for having abortions if abortion becomes illegal again. Trump responded that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who get abortions.After facing harsh backlash from pro-life and pro-abortion groups alike, Trump took back his original statement and said he believes abortion doctors should be punished, not women. A Trump spokeswoman later called the remark a “simple misspeak.”

Trump’s original remarks do not reflect the sentiments of most people in the pro-life community, but Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood and their friends in the mainstream media don’t care about the truth on this issue. Deception is the abortion industry’s game, and they play it well. They pounced on the remark and attacked the entire pro-life movement, painting us as people who hate women and want to send them to jail.

Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, explained why Trump’s thoughtless remark was so damaging:

     "Most of the media do a very poor job of hiding their support for abortion. They never ask consistent pro-choice politicians why they believe it should be legal to kill a child for the crime of being a girl instead of a boy, of having Down syndrome, or of being an inconvenience. But they always think to press pro-life politicians about rape exceptions to protections for unborn children."
    "The uniformity of thought among journalists has meant that pro-life politicians have to be very careful how they talk about the sensitive subject. The media may forget to cover serial killing abortionist Kermit Gosnell until forced to by public pressure, but they have no problem writing 243,000 stories about a senate candidate saying something wrong about pregnancy."
     "Even this story, in which Trump betrayed the pro-life movement, the media treated it as something that only pro-choicers might have a problem with. Bloomberg wrote of it, “The comment, which immediately riled abortion-rights supporters…” Riled, perhaps, but they couldn’t have dreamed of a better comment to position themselves against. The Daily Mail seemed to think Trump’s comment was intended to appeal to pro-lifers! Do they know any pro-lifers?"

At the very least, Trump should have planned a more thoughtful response to difficult questions like this. The media asks them to pro-life candidates often enough, so he should know. As Hemingway points out, Trump easily could have responded by calling out the media’s gotcha game – just as U.S. Sen. Rand Paul did in 2015. ["Rand Paul Turns the Typical Question on Abortion Exceptions Around in the Most Amazing Way" - Steven Ertelt, Apr. 8, 2015; http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/08/rand-paul-turns-the-typical-question-on-abortion-exceptions-around-in-the-most-amazing-way/]

Instead, Trump spoke thoughtlessly and opened the doors to a flood of condemnation onto the entire pro-life movement. Abortion activists have been using Trump’s gaffe to attack pro-lifers as unfeeling, uncompassionate and hypocritical.

While much of the fault is with the mainstream media and its ties to the abortion industry, Trump can’t escape some of the blame. Himself a player of the media for years, he should have known the pro-abortion leanings of the liberal media and prepared for such questions.

The “simple misspeak” seems to indicate that Trump just doesn’t understand the pro-life movement well and hasn’t thought much about his position on abortion. If Trump is pro-life, as he says, and truly wants to protect unborn babies and women from the pain of abortion, he needs to do a better job of showing it.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

"When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here’s Why" - 
  Clarke D. Forsythe, Mar. 31, 2016 | http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/31/when-abortion-was-illegal-women-were-not-jailed-for-having-abortions-heres-why/ [NOTE: This is a very thorough article but is just too long for this blog site.It's still well worth your taking a look at.]
  

# 1546 (4/1) "NATIONAL ATHEIST'S DAY [April 1st]"

"NATIONAL ATHEIST'S DAY [APRIL 1ST]" - Grady Scott; http://www.christianlibrary.org/authors/Grady_Scott/atheistday.htm#top

Driving around town I often slow down so I can read church signs. Some of them are just plain, just giving schedule of services and name of the preacher. But some of them having wise and witty sayings. On one in town is this sentence, "April 1st -National Atheists Day."

I think that all of us are aware of what April 1st is in our country. It is called "April Fools Day." It is where people "fool you" about something and then yell, "April Fools." How many of us have not been tricked this way with a "your shoes are untied" or other such funny tricks? Most of it is done in good humor.

The Bible tells us that we should be careful about calling another person a fool (Matthew 5:22). While the text in Matthew seems to deal with being angry with a brother and not a harmless joke like April Fools Day it is true that we should be careful about attributing to another the descriptive term fool.

But what better day could one pick for National Atheists Day than April 1st, April Fools Day? The Bible makes this clear. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1). The Bible says that anyone who denies God is a fool!

Why is the person who denies God a fool? The Bible clearly tells us. In Romans 1:18-22.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

While this refers specifically to the Gentiles of Paul's day who had departed from God and had worshiped idols instead of the living God, it clearly fits our present day atheists as well. Paul says that there is no excuse for not believing in a personal God who created the universe. God has simply left too many "hand prints" all over His creation for man to not be able to see Him. One need only look at the world and everything in it to see that there must be a God. Paul says that there is simply no excuse for a person denying the existence of an intelligent creator. He concludes by stating the obvious concerning all the great thinkers who deny the existence of God, "professing to be wise, they became fools"

Come to think of it, April 1st might be the perfect day to celebrate "National Atheists Day." Nothing in life is more foolish than denying the existence of God, since He has left indisputable proof!

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Copyright 2000 by Grady Scott may be reproducted for non-commercial purposes at no cost to others.

"APRIL 1ST—NATIONAL ATHEIST'S DAY" - David J. Stewart | April 2007 | Updated March 2016; http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Atheism/fools_day.htm

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” —Romans 1:20

        Only a complete fool would deny the existence of almighty God. Creation itself is a clear and incontrovertible witness to the existence of a divine Creator. Oh the wickedness of those who blaspheme God, by denying His eternal Power and Godhead!
Please look at the colorful and tasty looking photo below.           

  I see juicy red tomatoes, blessed blueberries, crisp red apples, delicious strawberries, various sorts of bell peppers, corn, squash, grapes, cucumbers, et cetera. How could Evolution do this? How could a “Big Bang,” resulting in cosmic chaos and accidental aftermath, evolve into a highly organized universe that any honest scientist knows was created with design, purpose and order. A big bang explosion couldn't do this. It is IMPOSSIBLE!!!

I was recently thinking about the cow, as I ate a delicious homemade burger. Here's a great recipe for Hellmann's burgers. They're so good, I don't even use ketchup or mustard. As I ate my burger, I thought about how God made cows to feed a lot of people. This animal has short legs and a big meaty body, to feed a lot of hungry people. Evolution couldn't do that! God is so good! Psalms 145:9, “The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.”

I learned this week that astronomers have estimated there are at least 200 sextillion stars in the universe.Wow! A “sextillion” is a 1 with 21 zeros behind it! Even more amazing is that scientists tell us there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand upon all of earth's beaches. Yet, just one atom of sand contains more atoms than all the stars in the universe!!! How could anyone deny that God exists, and that He created all things by His power! Only a wicked heart of rebellion, ingratitude and intentional unbelief could compel a person to deny God's existence. 

Truly, God is amazing and His greatness is unsearchable! Psalms 145:2-3, “Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever. Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]