# 1259 (6/15) Celebrating TODAY the 800 Years of the Magna Carta - "THE CHURCH’S ROLE IN GUARANTEEING OUR FREEDOMS"

"Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta - 'THE CHURCH’S ROLE IN GUARANTEEING OUR FREEDOMS' " - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: June 15, 2015;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/27583

Eight hundred years ago [TODAY], a document was signed that guaranteed the freedoms we still enjoy today. And I’ll tell you about the crucial role the Church played in its creation.

June 15th marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta—a document that has been called “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

As you might expect, Great Britain is pulling out all the stops to celebrate the anniversary. And as you might also expect, the celebrations are omitting an important detail: the role of Christianity in “the foundation of freedom.”

The Magna Carta, Latin for “Great Charter,” was a product of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. Forty-five years earlier, King Henry II was implicated in the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. And now, in 1215, rebellious barons were objecting to what they saw as King John’s infringement on their traditional rights, including unlawful imprisonment and excessive taxation. With the disagreement threatening to turn into a civil war, the Archbishop of Canterbury, working as an intermediary between the King and the barons, helped to draft a proposed charter that would settle the dispute.

The Charter was not limited to the barons’ concerns. As historian David Carpenter has written, what made the Magna Carta beloved by the likes of our Founding Fathers and Nelson Mandela was that the Charter “asserted a fundamental principle—the rule of law. The king was beneath the law, the law the Charter itself was making. He could no longer treat his subjects in an arbitrary fashion.”

As Carpenter says, “in 1215 itself both John and his enemies would have been astonished had they known that the Charter would live on and be celebrated 800 years hence.” In 1216, they fought the war the Charter was intended to avoid. But John’s successors reaffirmed their commitment to the Magna Carta, and in 1289 made it part of the laws of England.

Since then, virtually every opponent of despotism and tyranny in the English-speaking world has drawn inspiration from the Magna Carta, which declared, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.” When the Founding Fathers complained about “taxation without representation,” they were appealing to the Magna Carta.

Given the centrality of this document to our way of life, it behooves us to tell its story accurately and completely. Unfortunately, that is not happening. That’s why British churches have started a major campaign that focuses on the Christian influence on the charter.

The Church of England’s Synod of Bishops has stated that “It is important that the Church’s crucial role in Magna Carta and its rights is not air-brushed out in 2015—as was the role of Christians in the anti-slave trade celebrations.” As the Bishops remind us, “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution . . . the first parties to the charter were the bishops—led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free.’”

In other words, no human rights without religious freedom.

Perhaps the secular air-brushing isn’t that hard to understand, after all. The very words of the Magna Carta are a stumbling block for a culture that is eager to cast off its Christian heritage.

So why not share the story of the Magna Carta and the role Christianity has played in guaranteeing our freedoms? Email this commentary to a friend or two, or share it on Facebook.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
Why We Celebrate the Magna Carta: The Church’s Role in Guaranteeing Our Freedoms
As Eric said, “No human rights without religious freedom." Read the text of the Magna Carta.[http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/magna-carta-text.html] And check out the book links below to find out more about the influence and legacy of Christianity in the cultures and societies of the world.

RESOURCES
"Churches will use Magna Carta anniversary to 'reassert Britain’s Christian heritage'"  
John Bingham | The Telegraph | June 12, 2015; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10964147/Churches-will-use-Magna-Carta-anniversary-to-reassert-Britains-Christian-heritage.html
"Magna Carta Exists Thanks to Christians' Influence, Say Church Leaders as UK Celebrates Document's 800th Anniversary" - Michael Gryboski | Christian Post | January 26, 2015;http://www.christianpost.com/news/magna-carta-exists-thanks-to-christians-influence-say-church-leaders-as-uk-celebrates-documents-800th-anniversary-133105/
Magna Carta text  - Constitutional Rights Foundation website - http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/magna-carta-text.html

The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force
Rodney Stark | HarperOne | June 1997
The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success
Rodney Stark | Random House Trade | October 2006
For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery - Rodney Stark | Princeton University Press | August 2004

# 1257 (6/13) "Decline in Abortions" / More Abortion Clinics To Close in Texas

"DECLINE IN ABORTIONS" - by Arina Grossu, June 11, 2015;
http://www.frcblog.com/2015/06/decline-abortions/

The Associated Press reported this week that abortions have decreased nationally by 12 percent since 2010.  This is an encouraging sign showing that hearts and minds are changing on the issue of abortion.  Where’s the momentum coming from?

First, as technological improvements, such as 4D ultrasounds, continue to show the humanity of the unborn child, more mothers reject abortion. In a survey conducted by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), found that 78 percent of mothers considering abortion who viewed an ultrasound image of their unborn child chose life.

Second, science also confirms that unborn children feel pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization.  The pro-life movement is the one that is rooted in science and medical facts. As more people learn about the actual development of the unborn baby, it becomes that much more difficult to deny her humanity.  In fact, the House passed and the U.S. Senate tomorrow is introducing a bill to protect unborn pain-capable babies from abortion.

Third, states have enacted more laws in the past four years than in the entire decade previous. These laws save lives.  Surprisingly, abortions are down even in liberal states like New York, Washington and Oregon, which maintained unrestricted access to abortion, the AP reports.

Dr. Michael New expresses some caveats to the good news.  He notes that the survey should have focused on abortion rates instead of abortion numbers and that abortion data from state health departments can be unreliable because of less rigorous reporting standards. Even so, he says that a smaller percentage of women with unintended pregnancies are having abortions. Pulling from Guttmacher Institute data, he explains that the percentage of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion fell from 54 percent in 1994 to 40 percent in 2008.  He also reminds us that since 1990 when abortions in the U.S. peaked, they have declined by approximately 34 percent since then.

There’s good reason for hope in the pro-life movement as technology and science continue show us the humanity of the unborn. As more states enact pro-life legislation and as public opinion continues to shift on the side of life, the momentum is likely to continue.  Let’s be encouraged as we continue to work to dismantle legalized abortion in the U.S. and relegate it to a dark chapter of our history.  Our future rests in the protection of the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters in the womb. 

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion Clinics Across Texas Expected to Close After Court Upholds Pro-Life Law" -  BECKY YEH   JUN 12, 2015   |http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/12/abortion-clinics-across-texas-expected-to-close-after-court-upholds-pro-life-law/

"...The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Texas may enforce provisions of H.B. 2, a pro-life law passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by former Governor Rick Perry.
The mandate requires Texas abortion mills to meet ambulatory surgical center standards. Facilities that perform abortions must upgrade spaces in order to comply with uniform criterion, such as minimum requirements for facility hallways, doorways, ventilation systems, and rooms.

The provision would effectively shutter abortion facilities across the Lone Star State, protecting women from unregulated and shoddy mills that only catch public attention after botched abortions or Gosnell-like barbarity. ... Prior to H.B. 2, there were roughly 40 abortion facilities in the state. Yeakel said the number of abortion mills is expected to dip in the state to about eight with the new provision in effect...."

# 1256 (6/12) "...THE GROWTH OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD"

"Aslan Is on the Move - THE GROWTH OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: June 10, 2015;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/27540


Even while the West turns its back on the faith, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds.

     A Washington Post article tells the story of a tiny Baptist church near Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The congregation had dwindled to just fifteen members. With bills stacking up, Deacon Larry Montgomery told the congregation, “We’re just not going to make it.” Montgomery then told the people of Scenic Drive Baptist that there was a congregation who might want to buy the church. This congregation had been meeting in homes and had a pastor whose business card quoted John 4:35: “Look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.”

Montgomery approached the pastor, who then called his flock to pray about it. His prayer began “Abuna Semawi, nashkurak.” That’s Arabic for “Heavenly Father, we thank you.” The pastor, Egyptian-born Raouff Ghattas, a nuclear engineer by training, had attended a Southern Baptist seminary with a view to becoming a missionary. He and his American-born wife, Carol, share a mission: “Never rest until you tell every Arab about Jesus.”

For two decades they served in places like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia. But when they returned to Carol’s hometown of Murfreesboro, they found that their mission field had come to them. The town even had a mosque.

So they went to work telling local Muslims about Jesus, and Scenic Drive Baptist Church became Arabic Baptist Church, a place where Arab Christians and non-Arab Christians can worship together.
In every sense that matters, Scenic Drive Baptist did “make it.” It just did so in a way that suited the moment we are living in.

Writing in the journal First Things, my friend and colleague Roberto Rivera summed up the growth of Christianity worldwide by citing C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia: Aslan is on the move. Here’s a statistic that will – or at least should – blow your mind: More than half of all Christians who have ever lived are alive today. The Gospel is being preached all over the world, and people are saying “yes.”

This includes the Islamic world. In a recent “Breakpoint This Week” broadcast, my colleague John Stonestreet spoke with David Garrison and Paul Filidis about the upcoming “30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World,” which starts on June 18. Garrison traveled more 250,000 miles around the Islamic world chronicling what’s probably the most underreported important story of our time: waves of Muslims converting to Christianity.

His book, “A Wind in the House of Islam,” documented nearly 70 movements of Christianity in the Islamic world in the past two decades: movements being defined as “1,000 Muslims receiving Christian baptism, a public statement of their faith in Christ.” In fact, Garrison estimates that these 70 “movements” represent more than 80 percent of all such movements in Islam’s 1,400-year history. As he put it, Muslims all over the world “are falling on their knees, finding in fact that this is the living God who has come into the world—God with us, God among us—who is bringing them salvation that they were never able to find” in Islam.

The 30 Days of Prayer, which coincides with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, is one way we can participate in this great work of God. ... remember, Aslan is on the move.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

RESOURCES -- For more information on the 30 Days of Prayer for the Muslim World, visit www.30DaysPrayer.com

"BreakPoint This Week: A Call to Prayer for the Muslim World" - John Stonestreet interviews David Garrison and Paul Filidis | June 1, 2015;http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27484
"The Religious Crowds" - Roberto Rivera | First Things web exclusive |June 14, 2015;http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-religious-crowds
"One church's need means a new day for another" - Stephanie McCrummen | Washington Post | May 30, 2015;http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/as-old-line-southern-baptist-churches-struggle-a-dying-one-has-an-epiphany/2015/05/30/b0662e82-058d-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html
A Wind in the House of Islam: How God is Drawing Muslims around the World to Faith in Jesus Christ - David Garrison | WigTake Resources | January 2014

# 1255 (6/11) "Pride and Christian Prejudice"

"PRIDE AND CHRISTIAN PREJUDICE" - by Tony Perkins, Washington Update, June 10, 2015; http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/20150610/pride-christian

If you asked Americans what the mission of the military is, most would probably say to fight and win wars. And by wars, they wouldn't mean the cultural wars. President Obama's radical social policies seem to suggest the latter, as yesterday's Pentagon festivities made painfully clear. The latest Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, who's made more headlines for his attack on values than on terrorists, led the military parade for gay pride month at the Pentagon's official party -- which featured one of the Army's "transitioning" officers, among things. To a standing room-only crowd, Carter's biggest rah-rah moment was introducing Brigadier General Randy Taylor, who shared that he had to hide his relationship with his boyfriend under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

Today, he's pleased to say that he can show off his "husband" without fear of losing his job. For conservatives, now forced to closet their views, it was a sad irony to see this general applauded for his sexual choices when chaplains like Wes Modder can't even cite Scripture in a private counseling session! As a party favor, Carter announced that for the first time in history, the military is breaking from tradition and turning sexual orientation into a "protected class" -- violating a fundamental 2011 promise and setting off a chain of events that many (including our own Lt. General Jerry Boykin) think could change the Armed Forces forever.

Back during the congressional debate over DADT, the military's service chiefs were promised that the Equal Opportunity guidelines would not change -- which, like many other assurances, has turned out to be a bold-faced lie that greased the wheels of repeal. As we've witnessed in the four years since, once the camel's nose was under the tent, the dominos started to fall. Under an affirmative action-type system, what troops do in the bedroom will transcend what they do in battle when it comes to key personnel decisions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the military will start catering to gays, lesbians, and transgenders at the expense of good soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. As they have with every incremental change, activists will leverage this new standing as a way to demand access and force affirmation.

Yet Carter, who actually claimed that elevating LGBTs is a matter of national security, thinks people will buy his line: "We need to be a meritocracy. We have to focus relentlessly on our mission, which means the things that matter most about a person is what they can contribute to national defense." But obviously, we can't be a meritocracy when sexual expression becomes more relevant than professional experience.

As General Boykin pointed out, "The military's job isn't to champion causes -- it's to fight and win wars." Decisions like that don't facilitate the mission, they distract from it -- and further emasculate the warrior class. The administration likes to say, as Carter did Tuesday, that "Discrimination of any kind has no place in America's armed forces." Tell that to Christians, who are being shown the door the Pentagon just opened to homosexuals. Marginalizing faith has serious long-term consequences, as we learned 50 years ago in the public schools. Now the same thing is happening in the military, and what's the result? We're celebrating gay pride at the expense of American pride.

Ask Abilene Baptist Church in Georgia. Their annual Fourth of July event, which was once a celebration of American exceptionalism, turned into a national headline when the Army -- after 20 years of doing so -- refused to provide a color guard, claiming it violated policy to join a "religious service." Our good friend Todd Starnes of Fox News broke the story, which continues to shock conservatives who thought they'd heard everything. As a Marine, one of my additional duties was providing color guard service -- at funerals, churches, union events, you name it. Not once did we, who took an oath that included "so help me God," turn down a request for being "overtly religious." This was a church, incidentally, whose tradition of honoring our Armed Forces dates back to 1774 when the first pastor was a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army.

Faith and military service have been an inseparable piece of the American fabric for centuries. And to watch that fabric unravel at the hands of a radical few is painful -- but not irreparable. Courage, the same kind that led the great men and women of this country to put on their uniform, is needed more now than ever. Pray for our troops -- not only that they would have the fortitude to fight the enemies abroad, but the agenda within.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
------------------------------------------------------------------- "Air Force Pilots Policy Change on Transgenders" - by Tony Perkins, June 05, 2015 - http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/20150605/air-force-policy
     "...Let's not forget -- transgenderism is at its root a serious mental disorder (one classified as such -- not just by Johns Hopkins -- but the military's own Defense Department!). If these men and women are confused about their gender, what's to keep them from being confused about their mission? With the world falling to pieces and the margin of error so slight, can we really afford these distractions? By letting people create their own realities, Washington is losing its grip on its own."

#1254 (6/10) "3 Things You Need to Know About Marriage and the Supreme Court This Month"

"3 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MARRIAGE AND THE SUPREME COURT THIS MONTH" - Ryan T. Anderson/ @ryantand / June 08, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/08/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-marriage-and-the-supreme-court-this-month/

The Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)

Later this month The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on state marriage laws. Here are the three most important things you need to know about the case, and what to do after the Court rules.

1. Whatever people may think about marriage as a policy matter, everyone should be able to recognize the U.S. Constitution does not settle this question. Unelected judges shouldn’t insert their own policy preferences about marriage and then say the Constitution requires them everywhere.

There simply is nothing in the Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, represents one of the states whose law is under review by the Court. While Portman is personally in favor of same-sex marriage, Portman is against the Court unilaterally redefining marriage for the entire country. Portman rightly recognizes that marriage policy must be worked out democratically.

After all, the overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether a male–female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution. Nor is it whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the Constitution.

If the Court were to redefine marriage for the entire country it would be engaging in judicial activism because the Constitution does not require such a redefinition. Rather than rush to a 50-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole.

 There is no need for the Court to “settle” the marriage issue like it tried (unsuccessfully) to settle the abortion issue. As I told George Stephanopoulos in April on ABC’s “This Week,” because the Supreme Court cut the democratic process short on abortion, it exacerbated tensions in American public life over the issue.Our politics on abortion have been polarized because the Court didn’t allow the democratic process to work. Why would the Court want to repeat that mistake? Why would the Court want to inflame the culture wars on another issue? Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone.

2. The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Everyone in this debate favors marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways. The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage. Since the Constitution doesn’t answer that question, the people and their elected representatives should.

3. Whatever the Court rules about marriage, the government should not discriminate against any citizen, charity, school, business or any other institution of civil society that continues to believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife. Even if the Court issues an activist decision mandating states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, such a ruling does not mean that government has to force citizens and institutions of civil society to violate their beliefs. Nor should it mean that.

Again we can look to Portman. While he is personally in favor of democratically redefining marriage, he does not want the government to force his definition onto other people, coercing them into violating their consciences and penalizing them if they refuse.

Unfortunately, there have been too many cases where the government has coerced and penalized citizens simply for acting in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife. This must stop.

After all, sexual liberty and religious liberty can co-exist. And ordinary citizens want them to coexist. Ordinary Americans—both those in favor of gay marriage and those who oppose gay marriage—do not want the government violating the rights of conscience of their neighbors.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting.

No matter what the Court decides, the United States is in a time of transition. Beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Will the right to dissent be protected? Will the right of Americans to speak and act in accord with what the United States had always believed about marriage—that it’s a union of husband and wife—be tolerated? It should.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He's the author of the forthcoming book, "The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty." Read his research.

For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty,” ready for pre-order at Amazon.

"Dr. Robert George's Defense of Marriage" - By: Eric Metaxas|Breakpoint.org: June 8, 2015; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/27516?spMailingID=11578308&spUserID=MTMyMjM2ODE5OQS2&spJobID=560508811&spReportId=NTYwNTA4ODExS0

#1253 (6/9) "The Real Trouble With Obama’s Rhetoric"

"The Real Trouble With Obama’s Rhetoric" - Arthur Milikh / June 07, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/07/the-real-trouble-with-obamas-rhetoric/

Since 2009, everyone has been waiting for a clear articulation of President Obama’s grand strategy. Indeed, careers have been made analyzing what this mysterious thinking might be. The administration has of course released documents like the 2015 National Security Strategy. But regrettably neither the military community nor the defense civilian establishment takes seriously such generic and abstract documents, which contain polite clichés like: “To succeed, we must draw upon the power of our example—that means viewing our commitment to our values and the rule of law as a strength, and not an inconvenience.”

Last month, clarity finally came. “Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security,” the president informed the graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. This was among the strongest and surest statements he has made against any of our enemies.

Strangely, never have such decisive words been used about concrete, human adversaries such as Iran, Russia, or ISIS. Against human threats, no calls for mobilization, courage, or perseverance were heard. Rather, bureaucratic inanities like “dialoguing,” “resetting,” and “degrading” would take care of those problems. But in fighting inhuman abstractions like climate change, the president is clear-minded and strong-willed. Against climate change, he has even said “we need to act—and we need to act now.” In fact, we are told, it would be “a dereliction of duty” to ignore it. The entire world must act and “make sacrifices for generations to come.”

Fighting abstractions is among the favorite rhetorical genres of this presidency. There are abstract enemies on the domestic front too: “The defining challenge of our time” is income inequality, another abstract force. By attributing evil to a statistic, the president gives the impression of a mysterious and cruel force subverting human happiness.

Readily discernable reasons lurk beneath the president’s rhetoric. Abstractions do not fight back. They do not fight back because they have neither will nor intelligence, and therefore glory is attainable without risk—and for all. Not everyone can fight ISIS—only the courageous. But everyone can struggle against income inequality and “combat” climate change. Since no genuine moral courage is necessary in fighting an abstraction, one will never face acting in harrowing circumstances.

Attaining glory in the cause of only one nation does not suit the cosmopolitan morality of our nation’s elite. Therefore the battle against climate change promises to save mankind itself: “Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune,” the president said. Cosmopolitan causes make questions of either justice or strategy irrelevant. That is because abstractions, unlike ISIS or Iran, do not make arguments or claims on their own behalf, which muddy the moral waters and hinder universal conviction.

Appeals to fight climate change contain a mixture of two psychological extremes: First is the promise of nobility and glory for the victors and the believers. The second part is fear—fear of both world destruction, and fear that you will be personally or professionally destroyed if you disagree.

Another advantage is that one cannot be humiliated or undone by an abstraction. If income inequality isn’t “degraded” during his presidency, will Obama pay a price? Will he pay if the earth fails to cool and the oceans recede in the next two years? By contrast, surely there are consequences if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon and triggers an arms race in the region.

There are obvious and clear dangers in neglecting immediate security threats. While you allow those threats to grow unchecked, not only do adversaries’ ambitions grow proportionately to their weapons caches, but this growth means any response will require more force and sacrifice later on. Iran, Russia, and ISIS demonstrate this.

Nonetheless, the real trouble with Obama’s rhetoric is that it encourages unseriousness in the American public when facing real threats. Fostering this habit of moral dishonesty in the public will likely be the president’s most lasting though least detectable legacy.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine] (Originally published in The National Interest)

Arthur Milikh is assistant director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.

"National Security Problems Aren’t Caused by Climate" - Ted Bromund / @Bromund / June 06, 2015; http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/06/national-security-problems-arent-caused-by-climate/

# 1252 (6/8) as "4 Liberal Myths About Ronald Reagan Debunked"

"4 LIBERAL MYTHS ABOUT RONALD REAGAN DEBUNKED" - Lee Edwards/ June 07, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/07/4-liberal-myths-about-ronald-reagan-debunked/ [AS I SEE IT: It's been about 20 years since the death of President Reagan and yet already the lies about his achievements continue to be presented. I believe he was the greatest President in my lifetime and that we may never have one like him. No, he was not perfect. No one is. But for the critical time in history that he served our country, no one stands out as a driving force for good in America and around the world. He reflected strength, integrity, and a genuineness that is very rare in a public servant. Just looking at the picture below is such a reminder of how by his personality alone he seemed to lift the nation during a time of crisis. Because of that, I never hesitate at any opportunity to share an article about him. I hope that you will be encouraged by what you read. - Stan]


President Ronald Reagan (Photo: Pamela Price/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Presidential historian H. W. Brands’ new biography of Ronald Reagan and his conclusion that modern American politics is best seen as “The Age of Reagan” has aroused liberals to circulate once again the hoariest myths about the man and his presidency, including the malicious charge that Reagan was deliberately indifferent to the lot of African-Americans and other minorities.

Liberal Myth No. 1: Reagan’s dangerously belligerent foreign policy had little to do with the disintegration of Soviet Communism. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader most responsible for bringing the Cold War to a non-nuclear conclusion.

Reality: In the 1970s, as presidential scholar Kiron Skinner has written, Reagan formulated four key ideas about U.S.–Soviet relations and the Cold War. One, discussion of Soviet expansionism around the world had to precede any talk about arms control, not the reverse. Two, America was an “exceptional” nation obligated to match deeds with words in the promotion of freedom around the world. Three, because the Soviet Union was an “abnormal” nation with no popular base of support, it was prepared to foment global crises to maintain its control. Four, the Soviet Union’s inefficient economy and inferior technology “could not survive competition” with America. Once elected president, Reagan began carrying out a multifaceted victory strategy based on these ideas.

Reagan ordered an across-the-board buildup of the defense establishment, including land-based weapons, new ships, and new medium-range missiles. He launched a psychological offensive, declaring that the Soviets’ “evil empire” was headed for “the ash heap of history.” He made SDI (the Strategic Defensive Initiative) the cornerstone of the Reagan Doctrine and would not surrender it, even at the Reykjavik summit. He strongly supported anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and Cambodia.

He carried his crusade for freedom into the disintegrating Soviet empire. Standing before Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in 1987, he directly challenged the Kremlin, saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” A little more than two years later, the wall came down and Communism in Eastern and Central Europe collapsed. Lech Walesa, Nobel laureate and founder of the Polish trade union Solidarity that confronted the Communist regime, said of President Reagan, “We in Poland … owe him our liberty.”

Democracy triumphed in the Cold War, Reagan wrote in his autobiography, because it was a battle of ideas—“between one system that gave preeminence to the state and another that gave preeminence to the individual and freedom.” The Cold War ended in triumph for the idea of freedom because of Ronald Reagan, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who as late as 1988 quoted the Communist Manifesto when asked his position on private property.

Liberal Myth No. 2: The ’80s were a decade of greed that benefited only the wealthy and overlooked the middle class.

Reality: Reagan inherited a dangerously weakened economy. High tax rates had severely limited jobs and investment and brought in less than expected government revenue. President Reagan reversed the process by cutting personal tax rates and government regulations, stabilizing the economy and encouraging entrepreneurs.

Following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, unemployment in the succeeding years fell an estimated 45 percent. During the ’80s, the consumer price index rose only 17 percent, private domestic investment grew 77 percent, and economic growth averaged 4.6 percent annually. The real income of every stratum of Americans increased, and total tax collections rose from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1990 (in constant dollars).

At the same time, Reagan deregulated oil prices, making energy cheaper, and launched U.S.-Canadian free trade, setting the stage for NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). Perhaps most important of all, he created IRAs (individual retirement accounts) and 401(k) programs, giving birth to what has been called “the investor class.” New industries arose in computing, software, communications, and the Internet that streamlined and transformed the American economy.

Liberal Myth No. 3: The federal government continued to grow and expand under Reagan, who callously tripled the national debt.

Reality: During the Reagan years, overall domestic spending did increase, as the president battled with a Democratic House of Representatives led by a fiercely partisan Speaker Tip O’Neill. Spending on education, social services, medicine, and food almost doubled. However, federal outlays on regional development, commerce, and housing credit decreased by about 22 percent. And the size of the federal civilian workforce declined by about 5 percent, because of conservative managers such as Donald Devine, described by The Washington Post as “Reagan’s terrible swift sword of the civil service.” The annual federal deficit as a share of GDP fell significantly from 6.3 percent in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about 1 percent of GDP” by 1993.

The near tripling of the national debt was mostly due to Reagan’s defense spending. In President Carter’s last budget, America spent just under $160 billion on national defense. In 1988, the Reagan administration spent $304 billion, including more than twice as much on military hardware. During his years in office, Reagan expended a total of $1.72 trillion on national defense, an unprecedented amount that he stoutly defended.

Challenged in a cabinet meeting that he “couldn’t spend all of this money on the military” and that it would look bad to boost spending on guns while cutting the butter, Reagan replied: “Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”

The essential question was, “What price peace?” Was it worth $1.72 trillion to build up America’s defenses so that Reagan could end the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield?
Most Americans would not hesitate to emphatically answer, “Yes!”

If we examine the economic report cards of postwar presidents from Truman through Reagan, according to Harvard economist Robert Barro, Reagan easily finishes first. Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and growth in gross national product, Reagan ranks first. He engineered the largest reduction in the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) in history—50 percent. The 1980s, says economist Richard B. McKenzie, were, up to then, “the most prosperous decade in American history.”

Liberal Myth No. 4: Reagan was a cynical, calculating politician who used “states’ rights” to win the 1980 election and paid little attention to African-Americans as president.

Reality: The African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has calculated that black unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. The income of black-owned businesses rose almost one-third between 1982 and 1987. The black middle class grew from 3.6 million to 4.8 million during the Reagan years, while the cash income of black households (adjusted for inflation) rose by 12 percent. By contrast, the median income of black households fell by 2.2 percent during the Obama years from 2010 to 2013.

Throughout the ’70s, Reagan exhorted fellow Republicans to address the party’s failure to attract black voters. At the 1977 Conservative Political Action Conference, he said, “We [Republicans] believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs.” Speaking to the Urban League in August 1980, after having won the GOP’s presidential nomination, Reagan said, “I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans . . . into every phase of the programs I will propose.”

While marking Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday in 1983, President Reagan drew an arresting parallel between the first Republican president and the man Americans were honoring that day. “Abraham Lincoln freed the black man,” he noted. “In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. … Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence.”

Who better than Ronald Reagan to have the last word about which is the myth and which is the reality about his commitment to civil rights?

(Originally published in the National Review)  [bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards is the author or editor of 20 books, including biographies of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Edwin Meese III as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation and the movement as a whole.