#1532 (3/18) ''Labeling ISIS Actions Against Christians a Genocide Isn’t Enough'"

 ''LABELING ISIS ACTIONS AGAINST CHRISTIANS A GENOCIDE ISN'T ENOUGH'" - Travis Weber / March 17, 2016/ 
http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/17/labeling-isis-actions-against-christians-a-genocide-isnt-enough/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian Kurds carry the coffins containing 6 Iraqi Christian family members. The Christian population in Iraq has declined from 1.4 million in 2003, to only 275,000 today. (Photo: Marcos Andronicou/SIPA/Newscom)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State John Kerry announced that he believes that the Islamic State (ISIS) is committing genocide in the Middle East “against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims.”

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H. Con. Res. 75, which declared these actions genocide, and last month, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating the same. With this announcement, the Obama administration thankfully joins Congress and much of the Western world in declaring ISIS’ actions genocide. The recognition of genocide was the right thing to do. But it must be followed up with action.

Standing idly by will be difficult in light of a new report by the Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians documenting in detail that genocide is, indeed, occurring. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUCI4pO3szk] This report was apparently requested by senior State Department officials themselves, who asked for help in making the case that a genocide against Christians is taking place.

As discussed in the report, those responsible for genocide could be indicted in federal court if there is probable cause to believe they have committed the offense. A finding of probable cause, which is not too difficult in this case, provides a clear marker for the State Department and anyone else to determine that genocide has occurred and must be prevented from continuing to occur. The report contains multiple witness statements with responses to questions asking for name, gender, why and when the respondents left their villages, what happened to them, and whether they had been physically hurt. It also lists more than 1,000 Christians killed from 2003 onward and includes lists of attacks on Christians and churches, names of those murdered, a list of Christian and Yazidi sex slaves, and other documents evidencing that genocide has occurred.

The report is comprehensive and gives the State Department and anyone else everything they need to declare that a genocide against Christians has been occurring and must be stopped going forward. The report also recounts the explicit and clear statements from the genocidal organizers themselves that their acts are intended to wipe out Christians. One such declaration in ISIS’ official magazine informs Christians that this will be ISIS’ “final campaign” in which they “will be broken and defeated. … [W]e will raid you thereafter, and you will never raid us. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.”

According to ISIS’ own words, it intends to cleanse the “caliphate” along religious lines. By its own actions, it has been killing and driving off Christians and others based solely on their religion. All the elements of genocide, including the intent elements, are satisfied here. As renowned genocide scholar William Schabas notes in his book Genocide in International Law, “[i]f the accused accompanied or preceded the act with some sort of genocidal declaration or speech, its content may assist in establishing the special intent” required by the definition of the crime.

While genocide is clear in this case, far too few have been willing to own up to its grim reality. Thankfully, the Obama administration decided not to shrink away from this recognition. Now we must follow up this declaration with action.

Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, to which the United States is a party, states have an obligation to prevent genocide, as found by the International Court of Justice in the Bosnia v. Serbia case, by which they must “[e]mploy all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible” and “take all measures to prevent genocide which were within [their] power, and which might have contributed to preventing the genocide” (see paragraph 430). This obligation to prevent genocide is not “limited by territory,” but rather “appl[ies] to a State wherever it may be acting or may be able to act in ways appropriate to meeting” that obligation (see paragraph 183).

Consistent with international law and other applicable legal requirements, the United States is now obligated to act to prevent the genocide in territories under ISIS’ control. This obligation does not directly require military intervention, but it does mean we must do what we can.

In addition to triggering our legal obligation to prevent and punish genocide, a declaration that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and others will increase the moral pressure on the world’s conscience to do more to stop what never should have occurred in the first place.

Thankfully, the president has recognized what is occurring in the Middle East. Now is not the time to waffle on action. Should we prioritize petty political considerations over the weighty need to act—in reality, over human lives—we will permanently tarnish our reputation.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Travis Weber is the director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, where he focuses on all manner of legal and policy issues pertaining to religious freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"State Department Finds ISIS Guilty of Genocide. What’s Next." - Olivia Enos / March 17, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/17/state-department-finds-isis-guilty-of-genocide-whats-next/
"Kerry Comes to Terms with ISIS" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 17, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16C16&f=WU16C06

1531 (3/17) "Obama Leaves Garland Hanging"

"OBAMA LEAVES GARLAND HANGING" - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, March 16, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16C13&f=WU16C05 [AS I SEE IT: This article is filled with many counter-points to what the President - and subtly by much of the mainstream media - has argued. While the Senate seems to be standing firm against even hearing from any nominee, several Senators have already informally made contact with this one. We definitely need to be praying that the Senate will stand firm and that they will eventually have the majority to approve only a justice who shares the constitutional philosophy of the late Justice Scalia. - Stan]

Political theater. That's the only way to describe today's nomination by President Obama of D.C. Circuit Court's Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans have been clear both publicly and privately from day one that the American people deserved a voice in the lifetime appointment of the next Supreme Court justice. "Everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn't getting confirmed," Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reiterated. That's how the Democrats governed in the majority, and it's how the Republicans will continue to.  

Of course, that didn't stop President Obama from dangling a phony moderate in front of the GOP to complicate matters. Like Elana Kagan, this nomination was carefully orchestrated -- perhaps more so. Despite spending his career on the bench and in the Justice Department, Garland doesn't have much of an ideological paper trail. As many have pointed out, the D.C. Circuit Court deals primarily with regulatory issues, meaning that Judge Garland's record is virtually free of cases on abortion, marriage, or religious liberty. And that's no accident. If President Obama wants to keep up this façade of centrism, he needs someone free of social baggage. But, make no mistake. Garland was carefully vetted. This president is too worried about his activist legacy to put it in the hands of a man who values the very Constitution it defies.

Naturally, the White House will talk about Garland's "moderate" credentials (his fierce anti-gun stance should debunk that), but a survey of his former staff tells a different story. Of his former law clerks, 33 went on to serve liberal Supreme Court justices. Only 11 were hired by constitutionalists. "Not as liberal" is still liberal. With permanent job security, there's plenty of room to "evolve."

As expert Ed Whelan pointed out on NRO's Bench Memos, "Look for President Obama to argue [on Garland] that the Senate's unanimous or lopsided vote for that person for a lower-court seat (along with nice things senators said at that time) somehow prevents the Senate from taking a very different view of the Supreme Court nomination. To take one of many counterexamples, please note that Robert Bork was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit by unanimous-consent vote." And while many respect his intellect, like Whelan, they have "zero illusions that a Justice Garland would help move the Court in the right direction in undoing the damage of decades of liberal judicial activism."

In the end, the Senate's position isn't about the person -- it's about the principle. "The only reason that they're complaining about a hearing on the nominee is because they want to make the process as political as possible," Grassley said. "And that goes to the heart of the matter. We're not going to politicize this process in the middle of a presidential election year." The other 10 GOP members of his committee have already made up their minds. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) couldn't have been clearer when he said, "We're not going to confirm anyone. Period." But America's law professor-in-chief still insists: "In putting forward a nominee today, I am fulfilling my constitutional duty. I'm doing my job. I hope that our senators will do their jobs, and move quickly to consider my nominee. That's what the Constitution dictates..."

Wrong again. As scholars like Noah Feldman remind him, "Here's what the Constitution says about filling Supreme Court vacancies: nothing." Yet, as they've done with abortion and same-sex marriage, liberals are quite content to point to its invisible ink to suit their narrative. The reality is, President Obama has the right to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, just as the Senate has a right to ignore it. This is exactly what the Americans people wanted when it elected a GOP majority: a Senate that would rein in the president's unchecked powers. Now they have it. And on the biggest decision in a generation, we can all be grateful its leaders are doing their part.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Conservatives Raise Alarms Over Liberal Record of Obama’s Supreme Court Pick" - Philip Wegmann / March 16, 2016;http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/16/conservatives-raise-alarms-about-liberal-record-of-merrick-garland/
"Merrick Garland Would Rule Very Differently Than Scalia, Changing America’s Future" - Mike Needham / March 16, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-would-rule-very-differently-than-scalia-changing-americas-future/
"Obama Supreme Court Nominee Has History of Advocating Gun Control" - Philip Wegmann / March 16, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/16/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-history-of-advocating-gun-control/

# 1530 (3/16) "The GOP Sellout Continues" [Maybe Its Time For a THIRD Party!]

"THE GOP SELLOUT CONTINUES" - Genevieve Wood/March 15, 2016/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/15/the-gop-sell-out-continues/[AS I SEE IT: If you are conservative in your political views as I am, this article should make you want to scream! It's hard not to read this and understand the depth of anger among American voters this election cycle! But in our anger, rather than surrender ourselves to some demagogue as so many seem to be willing to do, I believe it's time for Americans to seriously consider creating a THIRD party that would truly represent conservative values. And the first thing the next truly conservative President needs on work on is to find a way to fire the yahoos who acts the way the present leadership in Congress does.  - Stan]

Perhaps they think the country isn’t paying attention to what’s happening on Capitol Hill because everyone is focused on the presidential race. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom)

To watch the recent happenings on Capitol Hill, you would think this was just another typical presidential election year—a few bumps here and there, but no sign of a major shake-up, no indication voters were in revolt, nothing to suggest business as usual in Washington was perhaps falling out of fashion among the American public. What else explains the lackluster, uninspiring, and I would suggest, “sell-out your base” agenda of GOP congressional leadership?

 For example, the Senate GOP sold out its base on the issue of Common Core this week. Despite the fact Republicans have a majority in the Senate, seven members of the GOP joined a majority of Democrats to confirm President Barack Obama’s nominee, John B. King, Jr., as education secretary. King is an avowed supporter of Common Core and other top-down, government knows best, education policies.

But at least the GOP is going to put up a fight on government spending, right? No, actually, they aren’t.  Apparently House and Senate leadership have decided the budget deal former House Speaker John Boehner and Obama agreed to last year is such a good one that they will keep it. That’s right, despite the fact Congress passed a Budget Control Act, supposedly to control the budget, Boehner and Obama blew through it, adding another $30 billion. And despite the fact that Boehner’s compliance in this matter is one of the primary reasons he is no longer in Congress, the current leadership is taking the same path. Their reasoning? Obama will fight us if we try to “cut” spending.

Instead of fighting Obama, GOP leadership would rather fight its conservative members who refuse to go-along-spend-along based on promises of future reforms. [THEY] apparently believe you’re supposed to try and do what you told voters you would try and do. Ultimately, this means it’s unlikely the GOP will fulfill its promise to pass a budget this year and once again Congress will kick the problem further down the road.

Then there is the ongoing issue of judicial nominations. Republicans ran in 2014 on a platform promising to put a stop wherever possible to Obama’s executive overreach. One way of doing that is putting a halt on Obama’s judicial nominees—especially those for lifetime positions.

While Republican senators, thus far, have committed to not even hold hearings on a new Supreme Court Justice nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia, their track record is more mixed in the case of several less publicized openings for federal and district level judgeships, also lifetime appointments. Obama nominees, including Wilhelmina Wright who once accused President Ronald Reagan of “bigotry,” were confirmed just last month, and four more are on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s schedule this week. None of these appointments are necessary to protect the security of the country. A president, who has repeatedly usurped the power of Congress, should not be rewarded by Congress with judges who will no doubt rubber stamp his reckless view of the separation of powers.

All of these areas are issue areas where the GOP could have taken a stronger stand in order to make the case that its policies will make life better for all Americans.

As opposed to approving a nominee who supports Common Core, how about using the opportunity to explain and laud the benefits of more educational choices for parents and children?

As opposed to continuing Washington’s spending spree, why not lay out a budget that would rein in spending and reduce the debt all while keeping our military strong and improving our ability to help those in need? And for those who think such a budget just isn’t doable, check out Heritage’s Blueprint here.["A Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for 2017" - By The Heritage Foundation; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/a-blueprint-for-balance-a-federal-budget-for-2017]

Considering a recent survey by the American Perceptions Initiative found that 75 percent of Americans agree that “Congress has the responsibility to make sure the president does not skirt the law or overturn the will of the people as reflected in those laws,” a battle over judicial nominations seems like a very good place for the GOP to remind people that Obama, from executive amnesty to rewriting parts of Obamacare, has been doing just that.

Perhaps they think the country isn’t paying attention to what’s happening on Capitol Hill because everyone is focused on the presidential race. What they should understand is that people have been paying attention all along and a presidential race no one in Washington expected is a direct result.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve.@genevievewood
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why This Lone Democrat Opposed Obama’s New Education Secretary" - Leah Jessen/ @_LeahKay_ / March 15, 2016; http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/15/why-this-lone-democrat-opposed-obamas-new-education-secretary/

#1529 (3/15) "Voting At A Crossroads"

"VOTING AT A CROSSROADS" - Thomas Sowell | Mar 15, 2016; http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/03/15/draft-n2133589


It is seldom that the fate of a nation can be traced to what happened on one particular day. But that may be what happens in the United States of America on Tuesday, March 15, 2016. That is because the front-runners in both political parties are not merely inadequate but appalling -- and the vote in this Tuesday's primaries may be the last chance for the voters to unite behind someone else.

The trends that brought us to this crucial day go back for years. But whatever the paths that led to this crossroads, we are in fact at a crossroads and our future, and our children's futures, depend on whether we can come up with some presidential candidate better than either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

In other times and in other conditions, one bad president could not ruin a great nation. We survived Jimmy Carter and we may survive Barack Obama, but there is no guarantee that we can survive an unlimited amount of reckless decisions in a dangerous world.

The dangers are both internal and external. Two of our bitterest enemies -- Iran and North Korea -- are openly declaring their desire to destroy us. And both are developing intercontinental missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. These and other mortal dangers are a product of the feckless foreign policies carried out by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the Obama administration weakened our military forces while our adversaries around the world have been rapidly strengthening theirs. We will be lucky to survive the damage that has been done already. A third consecutive term of such policies, with Hillary Clinton in the White House, can be suicidal.

Internally, Hillary Clinton's whole political career has been based on polarizing the American population by race, sex, class and any other way that will serve her political interests. This kind of cynical political exploitation can take the "United" out of the United States, and Balkanize us into an internal war of each against all. That is a war in which we can all lose.

As for the Republicans' front-runner, what is there left to say about Donald Trump? Almost daily he demonstrates that he lacks the maturity, the depth and the character required to lead a nation facing a complex range of dangers. It is not a question of his having flaws, which we all have. But what kind of warped character does someone have at his core who can mock a prisoner of war who was tortured for years by our enemies, mock someone else with a physical defect, reply to questions with gutter-level insults, and offer childish boasts about what he is going to do, instead of specifics about how?

These are not subtle nuances. They are blatant revelations about something fundamentally wrong. Too many people missed similar revelations about Barack Obama. For that we have already paid a price, and we will continue to pay a price, even after he is gone. So will generations yet unborn.

There is a reason why polls repeatedly show Donald Trump producing the highest negative reactions of any candidate of either party. Yet the small hard core of Trump supporters seem oblivious to his antics, his recklessness and his all-consuming ego. Some of these supporters may simply not be paying careful attention. But there have also been some very knowledgeable and intellectually talented people who have backed Trump. Sometimes it takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

What does Trump offer his supporters that makes them so willing to overlook so much? He boldly articulates the resentment and anger they feel at having been betrayed by smug elites in general and the Republican establishment in particular. Charismatic leaders who articulated the just grievances of the people have often risen to power on the basis of that talent alone. And those who put them in power have often paid a catastrophic price afterwards. That story was repeated in countries around the world in the 20th century. Will that story be repeated in America in the 21st century? The vote on March 15, 2016 may give us a clue.

The only candidate who has any real chance to stop Donald Trump at the ballot box is Ted Cruz. But the Republican elite, who have never liked Senator Cruz, may prefer to stop Trump with chicanery at the convention. That can cost Republicans the votes of Trump's followers, putting Hillary Clinton in the White House -- and the country on the ruinous road to a point of no return.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
Creators Syndicate

#1528 (3/14) "Why It's Becoming More Difficult to Be a Christian in INDIA" ...

"WHY IT'S BECOMING MORE DIFFICULT TO BE A CHRISTIAN IN INDIA" - CBN NE03-03-2016;
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/March/Why-Its-Becoming-More-Difficult-to-Be-a-Christian-in-India [AS I SEE IT: Here is another example of stories that don't make the mainstream news but which ALL freedom-loving people should be aware of. We need to remember to PRAY for our brothers and sisters in India and scores of countries around the world where every day people are facing persecution of all kinds for being a Christian. We need to pray that - despite the harsh treatment so many face - the gospel still goes out to the over 1 billion people in India alone who face a Christ-less eternity otherwise. - Stan]

It's becoming more difficult to be Christian in India. The Evangelical Fellowship says it knows of at least 177 cases of persecution that occurred in the country last year.

The Fellowship reports that during 2015, 68 incidents involved physical violence, 36 involved the stopping of services or the damaging of churches, and 18 Christians and pastors were arrested. At least three women reported rape cases -- including a nun who was raped at her convent. The worst persecution happened in central India in the states of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, and in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

Twenty-five million Indians, or about 2.3 percent of the population, are Christian. Many of them are Dalits, the poorest social group known as "Untouchables." Dalits are often denied their basic rights, including access to higher education, government jobs, and running for political office.

Six Indian states prohibit conversion from Hinduism to Christianity, or Islam. Reconversion ceremonies, where those who have converted to Christianity are forcibly re-converted to Hinduism, are commonplace -- especially in rural villages. Hindu priests and village leaders forcibly shave the heads of Christian converts in a practice known as tonsuring. Tonsured individuals are paraded around their village, subjected to ridicule, and then forced to say Hindu prayers during re-conversion ceremonies.

Christian leaders say many more cases of persecution against Indian Christians have gone unreported -- especially where the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJP) Party has assumed control in many state governments. They say in most cases, those who commit the acts of persecution go unpunished despite the guarantee of religious freedom enshrined in the Indian constitution.

"India Gov't Turning a Blind Eye to Religious Attacks" - CBN News, 03-09-2016; http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/march/india-govt-turning-a-blind-eye-to-religious-attacks [NOTE: Video clip included at weblink.]

India's Christians continue to face hate and intolerance, according to International Christian Concern (ICC). ICC reports 25 Hindu Radicals attacked and vandalized a Pentecostal church in Chhattisgarh state during its Sunday service on March 6. The church is located in Kachana colony, in the state capital of Raipur.

The attacks come on the heels of a letter from the U.S. Congress to India's Prime Minister, expresing grave concern over increased religious intolerance in India. According to witnesses, the radicals beat 60 Christians gathered at the church and forcibly stripped several women. They also destroyed Bibles, musical instruments and chairs.

The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was not allowed to visit India. [Click - on the weblink above - to watch an interview with Father Thomas Reese who was part of the delegation that was not granted visas.] Arun Pannalal, President of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, said the radicals claimed their attack was justified by accusing the church of conducting forced conversions. "They began alleging that people were being converted," Pannalal told the media. "They fled before police could reach the spot. This is the sixth attack on churchgoers in Chhattisgarh in the past six weeks."

Although police arrested seven people for the attack, local activists say that's unusual. The claim there's an atmosphere of looking the other way when it comes to the activity of Hindu radicals, and that has opened the door to several attacks in Chhattisgarh over the past week. Prior to the attack in Raipur, Christians across Chhattisgarh told ICC that Hindu radical groups had targeted them. ICC reports that on March 4 radicals attacked Pastor Baliram in the Kondagaon District of Chhattisgarh and stated that Christian activities were no longer permitted there.

Then on March 5, Christians in the Dantewada District reported members of the Bajrangdal radical group assaulted them, according to ICC. "Every day Christians are attacked," a local Christian wanting to remain anonymous told ICC. "What is reported in the media is like the tip of an iceberg." The vandalizing of the church  comes as the entire nation of India is debating the role of radical Hindu activism, Dr. John Dayal of the United Christian Forum said.

"The government in exacerbating an environment of hate and intolerance against civil society, the intelligentsia, and, above all, religious minorities such as Muslims and Christians," he told ICC.

"The attack on the church in Raipur is just one more sign of the growing religious intolerance in India," said ICC's Regional Manager for South Asia, William Stark. "Hindu radicals, who continue to go unchecked by the government, are dividing India along religious lines and labeling religious minorities, including Christians, as inferior and anti-India. India's government must do more to secure the constitutional rights of all of its citizens, including Christians, and to punish those who actively violate these rights," Stark continued. "Unless this is done soon, India risks forever losing its reputation as a pluralistic and tolerant democracy."

[bold and italics emphasis in BOTH stories above are MY emphasis]

#1527 (3/13) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "....Christians In A Darkening Culture"

"Keep Calm and Carry On - CHRISTIANS IN A DARKENING CULTURE" - By: Eric Metaxas|Breakpoint.org: March 4, 2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28954

Is the state of the culture freaking you out? Well, it doesn’t have to...

It was 1939, just before the outbreak of what would come to be known as the Second World War. Hitler was on the move, the dominoes were starting to fall. The British government, facing what Winston Churchill would soon call “an ordeal of the most grievous kind,” needed to bolster the people’s flagging spirits. So it began producing a series of propaganda posters.

One of them, with a bold, red background, was to be used only in the event of an invasion. That invasion never came, and so the poster was never used. But the slogan on it has lived on, and it has particular relevance to our day. The message: “Keep Calm and Carry On.” I like that.

Now let’s face it, American society, while not facing an immediate existential threat, nevertheless faces cultural decay that is a direct result of our lamentable rejection of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Whether it’s the redefinition of marriage; continuing attacks on religious liberty; the relentless push to undermine human dignity and the protection of the unborn; fears for what’s ahead politically in this momentous election year; or whether it’s concerns about ISIS or Iran that are keeping you up at night; the fact is, “Keep Calm and Carry On” is an appropriate watchword at this moment in American history.

Now of course as followers of the Lord Jesus we must keep calm and carry on. It’s our duty. If this moment has taught us anything, it’s that cultural power is fleeting. In the old days, calling yourself a Christian was a sure route to respectability, whatever you believed in your heart.

While that’s still true in some quarters, now lots more people look on matters of faith with a jaundiced eye, and growing numbers of them aren’t even interested in the old American ideal of religious tolerance. Yet for all these unhappy and undeniable trends, we’re still called—you guessed it—to keep calm and carry on. We must keep standing for righteousness, come what may. God remains on His throne.

We know the end of the story. We’re Christians and are called to act like Christians, whatever happens between now and then.

One of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who in his own way fought the Nazis, counseled not withdrawal but engagement in a fallen world. “Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies,” Bonhoeffer said in “Life Together.” “At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work.”

And what is our work as exiles in post-Christian America? I’m glad you asked! While we must always be open to God’s specific calling in our lives, let me suggest that we all recommit ourselves to some essentials of our own “life together,” wherever our culture happens to be. The culture may be changing at warp speed, but our duty does not.

First, let’s commit ourselves anew to biblical faithfulness. That means discovering what the Word teaches and holding onto that, no matter what.

Second, let’s display the beauty of the good news in word and deed, in evangelism and in acts of compassion—“in the thick of our foes.” We may not be able to argue our neighbors into the kingdom, but there is no law against inviting them.

And, finally, let’s recommit to prayer. As the Lord told the exiles in Babylon, “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”

Or, I might add, “Keep calm and carry on!”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - Recommit to the essentials: read and study the written Word of God; demonstrate God’s truth and love in your words and actions; and as Eric has encouraged, pray for God’s mercy and favor on the place where God has planted you.

RESOURCES
"Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" - Winston Churchill | May 13, 1940; http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/92-blood-toil-tears-and-sweat%3B

"Keep Calm and Carry On" - website - http://www.keepcalmandcarryon.com/history/

"Jeremiah’s letter to the Exiles" - Jeremiah 29 | Biblegateway.com - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jer+29&version=ESV

Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community - Dietrich Bonhoeffer | HarperOne | May 2009

#1526 (3/12) PRO-LIFE SAT: [Trump and the Planned Parenthood 3% Lie] "...There's Just One BIG Problem"

"Donald Trump Says Abortions are 3% of What Planned Parenthood Does. THERE'S JUST ONE BIG PROBLEM" - Steven Ertelt, Matthew Clark; Feb.6, 2016| http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/26/donald-trump-says-abortions-are-3-of-what-planned-parenthood-does-theres-just-one-big-problem/ [AS I SEE IT: The question has to be asked: Is Mr. Trump just "badly misinformed," OR is he really helping to spread misinformation and that doing so reveals his true convictions? Even if he is simply misinformed, it must be asked what it says about how carefully he studies the issues before he makes statements. - Stan]
 
During last night’s Republican presidential debate Donald Trump repeated the oft-stated claim that abortions constitute just 3 percent of the business the Planned Parenthood abortion company does. Here’s what Trump said:"As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I’m pro-life. I’m totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women — cervical cancer, breast cancer — are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn’t fund it.I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don’t know what percentage it is. They say it’s 3 percent."

However, even the pro-abortion Washington Post admits the 3 percent number is “a big lie.” The Post concluded that Planned Parenthood is “misleading,” “using meaningless and incomplete comparisons to make their argument, and the public should wary . . . .”

To arrive at that 3 percent figure, Planned Parenthood does some fudging and misdirection. Planned Parenthood depreciates the role abortion plays by defining its “services” in such a way that it avoids accounting for their time and expense.  A single pregnancy test is designated by Planned Parenthood as a “service” and thus given equal weight to a far more time-consuming and expensive surgical abortion procedure, another Planned Parenthood “service.” Likewise, each pack of birth control pills is considered a service and carries the same weight in the calculation as an abortion. When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services.

But there are obvious differences between these services. For example, a first trimester abortion can cost up to $1,500, according to the Planned Parenthood Web site. Yet an emergency contraceptive pill costs around $45 and a urine pregnancy test costs around $10 at a pharmacy. An abortion is a different type of procedure than a vasectomy, or testing for sexually transmitted infections or diseases, or a vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), and so forth.

While each service is listed separately, many clients received multiple services. A woman may get a pregnancy test, birth control and a pap smear, but she would be counted three times, once for each service, in the annual report. Quoting National Review’s Rich Lowry, WaPo notes:“Such cracked reasoning could be used to obscure the purpose of any organization. The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business. Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood want to use its health services as leverage to preserve its abortions, as if you can’t get one without the other.Of course, this is nonsense.”

Cutting through the blatant factual distortions painted by Planned Parenthood’s deceptive 3% figure, WaPo uses Planned Parenthood’s own statistics to expose the abortion giant’s lies.  It notes that according to Planned Parenthood’s own data, “patients who received abortions would account for 12 percent of total patients,” and “abortions comprised 14 percent of [Planned Parenthood clinic] visits.”

The Washington Post Fact Checker continues noting, as I have in the past, that looking at Planned Parenthood’s abortion revenue could paint a far better picture of Planned Parenthood’s true business model: "Typically, this calculation is made by taking the number of abortions, multiplying them by the average cost of abortions advertised by Planned Parenthood clinics, and dividing the figure by the organization’s total non-government health services revenue [clinic income]."

The main Planned Parenthood Web site says first-trimester abortions can cost up to $1,500. Some affiliate clinic Web sites provide a range of costs: a Western Pennsylvania clinic lists $390 to $1,090 for abortions, and first trimester abortion is priced at $515 in Arizona. It explains that while “advocates and opponents of abortion rights have calculated somewhere between 15 percent [of total revenue] and 37 percent [of clinic revenue]” comes from abortion, “[d]epending on which price you use, you can even get up to 55 percent.”

That’s 55% of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income coming from abortion.  I’ve previously calculated this at 51% of its clinic income.  It’s clearly grown in recent years.

In the end, the Washington Post gives Planned Parenthood’s longstanding 3% claim three Pinocchios (out of four), which according to its rating standard means that the claim is a “Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

It concludes: "The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is. As the Washington Post notes, “Planned Parenthood could end the speculation–and Pinocchios–by providing a more transparent breakdown of its clients, referrals and sources of revenues.” It is the one with all of that data – data that likely flies in the face of Planned Parenthood’s bogus propaganda.

But of course Planned Parenthood won’t do that (and in this case when given the chance, refused to do that).  Planned Parenthood has been caught in a lie and Donald Trump pushed the false statistic further.

“Planned Parenthood is America’s number one abortion seller, and the three percent figure is a myth propagated by Planned Parenthood itself,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. The pro-life attorney added: “It’s also a myth that Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive health services for women. Anyone saying Planned Parenthood does mammograms, for example, is actually accusing it of violating federal law. It does not offer any mammograms because it isn’t even licensed to offer them. In addition, community health clinics across the nation that do provide comprehensive services for women outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to 1.

The truth is Planned Parenthood makes millions off American women and taxpayers while funding politicians to keep its revenues coming. In the end, American women—and American taxpayers—don’t need Planned Parenthood at all, especially given that it continues to be rocked by scandal after scandal after scandal.”

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]