#1716 (9/20) "SPOILED SPORTS: NCAA Pulls Tourneys out of N.C."

"SPOILED SPORTS: NCAA Pulls Tourneys out of N.C." - Tony Perkins, Washington Update, September 13, 2016; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA16I02&f=WU16I01

North Carolina hasn't bowed to the cultural bullies yet -- but that hasn't stopped the NCAA from trying! Months after the state legislature passed H.B. 2, liberals are still trying to punish Governor Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) for listening to voters and enacting a common sense law that protects businesses from being punished by the government. Now, the country's leading association for college sports is hoping to make it hurt by moving seven championships out of the state -- affecting everything from men's and women's basketball, soccer, and tennis to lacrosse, golf, and baseball. What's worse, the announcement comes less than two months away from a pivotal election -- not just in the White House, but the North Carolina governor's mansion.

NCAA officials complained that the law isn't inclusive. But what could be more inclusive than letting businesses and private organizations set their own policies on bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms? That's what H.B. 2 does: respects the opinions of everyone, instead of forcing the government's on non-conformers. "It's so absurd it's almost comical," said North Carolina Republican Party spokeswoman Kami Mueller. "Under the NCAA's logic, colleges should make cheerleaders and football players share bathrooms, showers, and hotel rooms. This decision is an assault to female athletes across the nation. If you are unwilling to have women's bathrooms and locker rooms, how do you have a women's team? I wish the NCAA was this concerned about the women who were raped at Baylor."

If the NCAA had been paying attention, it would realize that despite a flash of opposition from Hollywood and a handful of entertainers, North Carolina leaders like Governor McCrory and Lt. Governor Dan Forest (R) have stood firm, which has only brought more attention to the Left's lunacy. After weathering the storm -- and picking up millions of allies -- North Carolina isn't about to flinch just because a sports league beholden to the Left's cultural bullies are packing up and leaving town. Lt. Governor Forest tackled the subject during the Friday session of Values Voter Summit, insisting that H.B. 2 was a "reasonable accommodation."

Now that North Carolina is a battleground state in November, he said, the Democratic Party is hoping to create "a third rail" out of the restroom issue to benefit Hillary Clinton and the Democrats facing him and McCrory in a tough election battle. There's just one problem. At home, the law has been enormously popular. Despite the media's account, absolutely nothing in North Carolina's bill would have given businesses the right to deny services to anyone. What it did deny was the access of grown men to the showers and restrooms of young girls -- an idea that 70 percent of the state thought was "unreasonable and unsafe." Forest also added that one of the leading advocates of the ordinance that sparked the firestorm -- Chad Sevearance, president of the Charlotte Business Guild -- was a registered sex offender, who's been accused of showing young men pornography. His involvement, Forest pointed out, proved "it wasn't a reach" to say the law would benefit would-be molesters and voyeurs.

International corporations and organizations shouldn't be dictating what North Carolina's policy is -- not when 334 local business owners support the law. There is also the hypocrisy aspect of the NCAA's fanned outrage as they are actually taking their show on the road to China. In reality the NCAA and its president, Mark Emmert have become puppets of the "Progressive" left that believes dissenting views should be punished. Contact the association and voice your frustrations here: http://www.ncaa.org/about/who-we-are/contact-us

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

..... (9/19) "TODAY Is My 66th GENday"

"TODAY is My 66th GENday" - by Stan M. Yonashiro. [NOTE: This is basically a re-posting of what I first wrote on my GENday 4 years ago. Because of that, I will not count this a new post.] 

Never heard that term before? Well, I first came up with the term around my birthday four years ago. So what do I mean by a GENday?

     Well, if you know anything about me, you probably know that I am MOST passionate about the on-going American Holocaust against the unborn conducted through abortion for more than 40 years now. I've spoken out for the sanctity of human life and against abortion in various forums since 1989, the year I risked getting arrested for blocking the entrance to 7 different abortion clinics and spent 3 days in jail for one of those actions. (I described that in 2 previous blogs.) I've also helped raise funds for more than  a dozen times for local pregnancy resource centers as well as speak out for Life in non-verbal ways every chance I get.

     Well, several years ago, I read an article that made aware that we actually celebrate the birth of Jesus – Christmas – but that in reality that’s NOT when God actually entered our world physically as a human being. Think about it. Jesus actually CAME into our world the day he was CONCEIVED in Mary’s womb. (How wild is it to realize that technically the Son of God dwelled  inutero for 9 months?) And so, in truth, we should be celebrating the day He was conceived, NOT the day He was born, because by then He had already been in our world for around 9 months!

     It's incredible to realize that if Jesus had entered the world  today, as an "unplanned pregnancy;" he could have been aborted. But in the Jewish society of over 2,000 years ago, they knew that the unborn was a person, that it was a  precious life even without sonograms.(Note the reference to "the baby" in Elizabeth's womb in Luke 1:41.) Sadly, too many today abort their unborn children because they are somehow convinced that the unborn is not really a person until they are born.

     Because life DOES begin at conception – as the Bible, and now sonograms, make clear – I believe that esp. we who are pro-life need to regularly note not just our BIRTHdays but also the day we were conceived. By doing this, we remind the world that the day of our conception is when life begins, and because of that it is from THAT day that all life  becomes too precious to be considered aborting.

      But then, how does anyone know the day when they were conceived? Well, I believe that we can presume that we were each conceived approximately 9 months previous to our birth day - or the date 3 months after our birthday. And so, since my  birth day is June 19th, my day of conception would have been around Sept. 19th (the previous year).Yes, this does then make me  9 months older than if I were just marking my birthdays, a thought that some might not want to think about.

     Then, why call it a person’s "GENday"? Well, I’ve been trying to figure out what to call that anniversary of my day of conception and have finally decided that since Genesis in the Bible is called the “book of beginnings," GENday (a shortened form of "Genesis Day") would be a good term for (about) the day each of our lives actually began! 

     And so, beginning four years ago, I now ONLY celebrate my GENday, Sept. 19th and no longer celebrate my birthday. Of course, I will always be thankful to my Mom for giving birth to me. But I want to help others note that each life begins at conception - not on the day of our birth - and that therefore each life needs to regarded as sacred and protected from that day. 

     Will the idea of celebrating our GENday ever catch on with those who profess to be pro-life? Well, I’d like to believe it might, at least I do pray it might. If YOU consider yourself pro-life, will YOU consider celebrating YOUR GENday from now on? Of course, you would still be free to ALSO celebrate your birthday. So, actually, celebrating  your GENday will give you another day to PARTY each year. And is there any of us that cannot use another reason to celebrate something each year?  Cool, huh? 

       I know... you might be thinking that this is a bit much. But then, I think it's a simple way for all who say they stand for the sanctity of all unborn life, to help the world to understand this Biblical –as well as scientific – truth that life begins at conception, not birth. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We Must Reawaken Society’s Appreciation of Unborn Babies Killed in Abortions" -  Maria Gallagher, Sept. 15, 2015| http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/15/we-must-reawaken-societys-appreciation-of-unborn-babies-killed-in-abortions/

#1715 (9/18) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "The Political Illusion - LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT"

AMERICA'S GOT TALENT: Well, America messed up and didn't vote to give the title to Laura Bretan!  In case you missed her awesome performances on Tues. AND last night, check out:  Laura Bretan - O mio babbino caro - Finals - America's Got Talent - 9/13 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpOfYC3eIDg;Watch Laura Perform with Il Volo - 9/15 

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7510408/americas-got-talent-finale-opera-singer-laura-bretan-il-volo-watch

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

"The Political Illusion - LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT" - By: Chuck Colson| Breakpoint.org: August 5, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29667 [AS I SEE IT: It has become easy today - at least among most evangelical Christians I know -  to disregard all discussion of what is happening as it relates to our government and politics because somehow all that's related to politics has been deemed "dirty" But government has been ordained by God because being by nature sinners and human beings have need of righteous rulers. As has been said, we get the government we have because of the leaders we put in power. If government possesses too much power and is not limited, we will have the runaway spending and lack of accountability that we now have. It is the Christian citizen's responsibility, therefore, to be involved in the political process even if is merely to vote wisely and to promote leaders we believe will govern us rightly. It is therefore sinful that in recent years, an average of only one-fourth of Christians eligible to vote actually vote in elections. Christians must rid themselves of the illusion that politics and government do not matter, because when we forfeit our responsibility before God to be good citizens, we surrender our country - and the country future generations will inherit - to those who do not desire us to be government righteously. May our pulpits teach us again about a proper view of government and our responsibilities to ensure we have good government. - Stan]

Back in 2001 on BreakPoint, Chuck Colson talked about a concept that would become a cornerstone of his Christian worldview teaching on government and politics. That concept was “the political illusion”: the idea that government can create the good society and solve all our problems. In the midst of this extraordinary presidential race, we thought it was time to hear Chuck on this topic again.... 

Congress recently shot down a constitutional amendment that would have required the federal government to balance its budget. In essence Congress said, We can't do it. We can't do what it takes to balance the budget. It was a major admission of defeat. Politicians have been promising to fix the deficit for years. In 1976 both presidential candidates made promises to balance the books. But today the debt is bigger than ever, and growing. [BTW, this continues to be dangerously true today in 2016.]

And it's finally beginning to dawn on people that government is not able to deliver on a lot of its promises.

For most of us, that's a hard lesson to learn. We instinctively turn to government to solve our social problems. It's a habit reinforced from the time we're young. Listen to these quotations from the Teachers' Edition of a fifth-grade social studies textbook.

"Today, when people lose their jobs," the textbook says, "they can get some money from the government." A few pages later the book says, "Today, families who do not have enough money for food can get money from the government." And a few pages later we read, "Today families who cannot afford to pay their rent can get help from the government."

The message is obvious: Government is the solution to every social need.

And here's a quotation that sums it all up. It's from a junior high civics textbook, explaining why the national government has grown so large. The book says that over time, "People were no longer content to live as their forefathers had lived. They wanted richer, fuller lives. They wanted the government to help make their lives rich and full."

What is this book teaching kids? That government can make our lives "rich and full."

This goes far beyond the traditional philosophy of limited government, in which the state is given only certain specified tasks, such as operating a police force and regulating traffic. Modern societies have fallen prey to what political writer Jacques Ellul calls "the political illusion": the idea that government is actually capable of creating the good life, the good society.

It's a modern form of idolatry, which treats the state as a god.

But like all idols, the state inevitably disappoints those who worship at its shrine. A government that can't even manage the simple accounting task of balancing its budget is certainly not capable of making people's lives "rich and full."

And it was never meant to.

Biblically speaking, government is simply one of the many social structures ordained by God, each with a specific task to do. The job of the state is to promote justice and restrain evil. The hope that it can do more than that--that it can make people happy or fulfilled--is doomed to failure and disappointment.

There's only one way to make life "rich and full"--not by turning to government but by turning to God. The kingdoms of this world rise and fall, but the Kingdom of God will rule in human hearts for eternity.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
GOD AND GOVERNMENT - Chuck Colson | Zondervan | 2007
The Political Illusion - Jacques Ellul | Wipf & Stock Publishers | March 2015

#1714 (9/17) PRO-LIFE SAT: "The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood Is About Abortion, Not Women’s Health"

"THE NUMBERS THAT SHOW PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS ABOUT ABORTION, NOT WOMEN'S HEALTH" - Lila Rose / September 14, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/14/the-numbers-that-show-planned-parenthood-about-abortion-not-womens-health/

In order to justify its half-billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, Planned Parenthood downplays its abortion numbers by falsely claiming that abortion only makes up three percent of its business. (Photo: Kris Tripplaar/Sipa USA/Newscom)

As Planned Parenthood looks to spend a record $30 million this fall to influence the November elections and keep its taxpayer funding flowing, Live Action has released a new online tool pro-lifers can use to help counter the kind of propaganda $30 million can buy.

Live Action’s new “3 Percent Abortion Myth” video dispels one of Planned Parenthood’s greatest myths—that abortion only makes up 3 percent of its services. [go to this article's web link to view the video]

In order to justify its half-billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, Planned Parenthood downplays its abortion numbers by falsely claiming that abortion only makes up three percent of its business—and instead plays up its cancer screenings and so-called “women’s health care.”

However, Planned Parenthood’s own numbers prove that it’s an abortion corporation, focused on abortion, not on women’s health care. The fact is, Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform a single mammogram and performs less than 2 percent of all women’s cancer screenings in the United States. Yet, as America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood commits over 30 percent of America’s abortions—887 abortions a day, one abortion every 97 seconds, and over 320,000 abortions last year alone.

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so focused on abortion that it aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption (it doesn’t do adoptions itself). If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy goes to Planned Parenthood, that child is 160 times more likely to be poisoned or dismembered than to be put up for adoption to a waiting family.

Live Action’s new motion graphics video not only shows that Planned Parenthood’s market share of abortions dwarfs its share of cancer screenings, it also illustrates how Planned Parenthood calculates its ridiculous 3 percent statistic to deliberately mislead the public and downplay its abortion business. The figure is derived by dividing the number of abortions it does by the total number of services it provides, counting a $10 pregnancy test or a pack of condoms the same as a $500 abortion.

Even The Washington Post and Slate have called out the abortion corporation for its deception.

Three percent is a hugely important figure to understand, because Planned Parenthood and its allies in Washington, Hollywood, and the media often use it to dismiss its critics as well as taxpayers who object to being forced to support the abortion chain with hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Three percent is not a real number, but over 320,000 abortions a year and a 30 percent market share of all U.S. abortions are.

Planned Parenthood by the numbers:

* Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for Pap tests is 0.97 percent. It performed 271,539 tests in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 28.1 million tests nationwide. (Source)

* Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8 percent. It performed 363,803 exams in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 20 million exams nationwide. (Source and note: These are physical exams, not mammograms.  Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms.)

* Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortions is 30.6 percent. It committed 323,999 abortions in fiscal year 2014-15, out of approximately 1.06 million abortions nationwide.(Source )

* Planned Parenthood aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption. (Source)

* Planned Parenthood is spending more than it ever has — and double what it spent in 2012 – to influence this November’s election. Citizens have a right to know the truth about an organization that has a hold on the media, our elected leaders, and our wallets.

You can share this video to help counter one of Planned Parenthood’s biggest lies and help educate other voters. Planned Parenthood’s millions of dollars are no match for the millions of voices speaking up for the most vulnerable among us — our precious preborn children.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Lila Rose is the president and founder of Live Action.

"Disentangling the Data on Planned Parenthood Affiliates’ Abortion Services and Receipt of Taxpayer Funding" - By Jamie Bryan Hall and Roger Severino; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding

#1713 (9/16) National POW/MIA Recognition Day; "No, the Constitution Isn’t Outdated"

9/16 - NATIONAL POW/MIA RECOGNITION DAY: Today is the day that we especially remember that there are Americans held prisoners and are still unaccounted for or "missing in action" from our past and on-going wars. I've spent time this morning looking for an article on the internet that recognizes this day but sadly could find none. Awhile back, it struck me as strange  that we rarely hear anything in the media about our Pows and MIAs, though we often see their familiar flag flying in front of government buildings. Why are we not kept up with who these individuals are and what efforts are being made to secure their release or the identification of their remains at least for the sake of their families.? (Did you know that there are over 8,000 soldiers from the Korean War who are still considered MIA? Did you know that last year they finally found the remains of a soldier missing from World War II - 70 years ago?!) Let's be about praying for those negotiating for the release of our POWs and the return of our MIAs' remains, that they work with the greatest efficiency and urgency. Let's be praying we will more regularly hear about the status of our POWs and MIAs and that we demand an accounting of such from our government! - Stan

"NO, THE CONSTITUTION ISN'T OUTDATED" - John York / September 15, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/15/no-the-constitution-isnt-outdated/?

Through the Founders’ own writings contained in the Federalist Papers, notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and correspondence, thoughtful judges and legal scholars get a clear sense of the spirit behind the words on the page. (Photo: Steve Gottlieb Stock Connection Worldwide /Newscom)

This Constitution Day, we celebrate the 229th year since our Constitution’s signing. For many Americans, the durability of our founding document is a point of pride, an indication of its high quality, and a worthy reason to revere it. Time tests quality, and the fact that our Founders’ creation has outlasted so many other regimes signifies their skill and prescience.

But for others, such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Constitution’s age is a mark against it. Asked in a 2012 interview whether Egypt’s new government should look to other constitutions for guidance, Ginsburg replied, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.” She added that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms might also be a good place to start, as it is “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution. … It dates from 1982.” More recently, this summer, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote in an op-ed for Slate that he “[sees] absolutely no value to … studying the Constitution.” His reasoning: “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”

The left frequently claims that political science, like the natural sciences, is continuously advancing. Accordingly, a competently crafted constitution written in the early 1980s must almost certainly be better than a constitution written in the late 1780s. After all, the framers of Canada’s charter had the benefit of nearly two centuries of societal developments that our Founders could not have foreseen. As Richard Stengel, former president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, wrote in a splashy 2011 article in Time magazine: "Here are a few things the Framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga."

Stengel’s list is instructive as it gives the reader a sense of the changes liberals think our Constitution does not adequately account for. Take for instance: “airplanes, the atom, the internal combustion engine, and antibiotics.” These all represent technological or scientific innovations unknown to the Founders that, purportedly, have some relevance to structuring a government.

Some scientific and technological changes do require that we think carefully about the Founders’ intent when they were writing the Constitution. For instance, new technologies allow police to peer into homes without physically entering them, intercept an email or a text message, or track your car from their computer back at the precinct. Whether these things constitute a search or seizure of citizens’ “houses, papers, and effects” under the Fourth Amendment is an important question the Founders do not answer for us directly.

But by no means are we merely left to guess how the Constitution speaks to these modern conditions. Through the Founders’ own writings contained in the Federalist Papers, notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and correspondence, thoughtful judges and legal scholars get a clear sense of the spirit behind the words on the page.

Given the Founders’ concern that government would use warrantless searches to harass and condemn political dissidents, it is hard to imagine James Madison or Alexander Hamilton would approve of warrantless wiretaps, drone flyovers, and email dragnets conducted by federal agencies. Other items on Stengel’s list—sexting, miniskirts, and Lady Gaga—belong to another category of societal development liberals often refer to when questioning our Constitution’s continued relevance: shifting social norms.

What they typically forget is our Constitution was never meant to address every new cultural development nor freeze American society in place as it existed at the turn of the 18th century. The Founders knew that the societal concerns and policy questions particular to their time would eventually be resolved and new issues would arise to take their place.

While the Constitution was not meant to steer the development of American culture in every sense, the Founders did think a free society demanded certain qualities of character among the citizenry: habits of self-governance, respect for the rights of others, and reverence for the law. But within those brackets is allowed some latitude for culture to develop organically and locally without the heavy hand of government at the helm.

While the Founders took special care to ensure the Constitution’s foundation could survive new developments in technology and society, the durability of the document owes as much to what the Founders knew about human nature and worked into our foundational text as it does what they recognized they could not foresee and left to future generations.

Our Founders believed government must be strictly restrained because those attracted to political power rarely restrain themselves. The Founders knew even the power of the majority should not be total, since infringements of individual liberty authorized by 150 million voters are often no more just than those authorized by a single ruler. As Madison writes in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

When men and women sprout wings and halos, or seraphim and cherubim descend from the heavens to run our government, then it might be time to question the continued utility of our Constitution. But as long as human nature remains subject to the same failings the Founders wisely identified, we should be skeptical of liberal doctrines that allow the powerful to interpret the extent of their own power and protect only those individual liberties a bare majority approves of.

As yet, the heavens have not parted, and human nature is still as fallible as it was 229 years ago. Thankfully, our nation was blessed with a generation of men who had insight to perceive the essential character of man vis-à-vis government and the wisdom to craft institutions rooted in those unchanging realities.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

John York is a research assistant in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.

#1712 (9/15) "Theodore Roosevelt and the Pursuit of American Greatness"

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND THE PURSUIT OF AMERICAN GREATNESS" - Jean Yarbrough / September 14, 2016 / http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/14/theodore-roosevelt-and-the-pursuit-of-american-greatness/ [AS I SEE IT: As Americans prepare to elect a new President to lead them, it is important that they remember the advocacy of their past leaders and what they did that benefited and what still haunts us to this day. I often wonder how much our schools today teach rightly about our past leaders so that we know what is best to require from future ones. - Stan]

Theodore Roosevelt, here at his desk circa 1906, turned out to be our first progressive president. (Photo: JT Vintage/Zuma Press /Newscom)

[Yesterday, Sept. 14th] mark[ed] the 115th anniversary of the swearing-in of Theodore Roosevelt, who would turn out to be our first progressive president.

Roosevelt was thrust suddenly into that high office after the assassination of President William McKinley on Sept. 14, 1901. On that somber September day, it was not yet clear what shape TR’s political trajectory would take. But before he left office, he would win a reputation as both an advocate of American greatness and a progressive reformer.

The United States was a rising great power 115 years ago, and Roosevelt did his best to accelerate that ascent. He was a staunch believer in military preparedness and threw his energies into building up American naval power. By the time he left office in 1909, the Great White Fleet had been around the world and was second only to Britain’s naval forces. For TR, American greatness depended on the projection of a great U.S. Navy.

But for all his efforts to build up military might, Roosevelt for the most part pursued prudent foreign policies while president. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his mediation in ending the Russo-Japanese War and kept America out of war during his time in the White House.

He popularized an African proverb, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick,” which he generally adhered to in foreign policy—but not at all in domestic differences. Roosevelt was the master of the political putdown, hurling colorful insults at his opponents.

For TR, national greatness also had a domestic component. Most people associate this with his support of national parks and conservation, but there was also an economic dimension. It is well to remember that the Republican Party of McKinley’s and Roosevelt’s day was not the party of laissez-faire and easy money, but of tariffs and a strong currency. These positions once again are being debated and sparking controversy among Republicans.

At the same time, Roosevelt railed against purely commercial ideals, which he regarded as “sordid” and “mean.” Aspiring statesmen, he declared in his inaugural address of 1905, should be animated by “lofty ideals” that would speak not only to “the things of the body,” but also to “the things of the soul.”

Especially after his landslide election to a full term as president in 1904, he moved further to the left, supporting top-down regulatory policies and greater economic redistribution—a feature of his legacy that animates the left to this day.

Roosevelt also welcomed immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, provided they assimilated rapidly to the American way of life, including learning English. If they failed to learn the language within five years, he thought they should be deported.

He railed against the hyphenated American, who celebrated the holidays and traditions of the old country. Americans, he thought, should celebrate Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July, not St. Patrick’s Day or other ethnic feasts.

He opposed multiculturalism “avant la lettre,” meaning before the term was coined. Assimilation was key to a successful immigration policy, and those that could not do so would have to leave.

TR would go on to lay the foundation for the administrative state by regulating railroad rates and fight (unsuccessfully) to extend bureaucratic control over the entire industrial economy. He also would call for the appointment of Supreme Court justices who shared his progressive views, and assert his own expansive view of executive power, unmoored from the Constitution.

TR’s legacy is mixed. While the first advocate for “American greatness” laid down the roots for our world-class military, many of his progressive reforms haunt us to this day.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Jean M. Yarbrough is a professor of government and the Gary M. Pendy Sr. professor of social sciences at Bowdoin College. She is the author of “Theodore Roosevelt and the American Political Tradition” (University of Kansas Press, 2012), which won the 2013 Richard E. Neustadt Prize for best book on the presidency.

#1711 (9/14) "Redefining the First Freedom - MORE THAN WORSHIP'

"Redefining the First Freedom - MORE THAN WORSHIP' - By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.org: August 26, 2016; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29766 [AS I SEE IT: Note in the second paragraph of this article that it was Hillary Clinton - who now seeks to be our next President - who made the statement reducing our freedom of religion to merely a freedom to worship. It further makes you question how she could make such a statement and still call herself a Christian. Think about it. - Stan]

In this classic BreakPoint commentary, Chuck Colson warns of an ominous shift in language when it comes to religious freedom. And he was right.

For some time now, I’ve been warning you about the various threats to religious freedom. We’ve talked about the gay-rights movement, which insidiously insists that religious believers and organizations bow before the altar of sexual freedom. We’ve talked about the so-called health care reform bill, which does not protect freedom of conscience of medical practitioners.

But now I’m seeing the threat to religious freedom in its most pernicious and dangerous form ever...
In a nutshell, here’s what happened. In a speech at Georgetown University, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on human rights. Not only did she talk about the right “to love in the way you choose,” (an obvious attempt at making protecting gay rights a top priority for the U.S. government), she also talked about “freedom of worship.” But she never mentioned freedom of religion. Only freedom of worship--a big change.

In the First Amendment, the founders ... wisely ensured that government could not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. And that means so much more than freedom of worship. It guarantees that we're not restricted just to living out our faith in the privacy of our homes or church sanctuaries. It means we're free to exercise our religion—and contend for faith—in every area of life.

Just this clever dissembling of words is an apparent attempt to restrict freedom of religion to freedom of worship only. Do you see the implications? Sure, I'm free to attend church, sing hymns, pray over meals, offer thanks to God for my children and grandchildren. That’s my own private affair.

But should the government succeed in redefining freedom of religion, how much longer can I practice my faith in public? If you read history, you will see that that the first act of a tyrant is to suppress religion, which means of course, religious practice. Our Founders knew this. They knew the first English settlers came to these shores precisely so they could practice their faith.

And if you read history, you’ll know that the one true threat to a tyrant’s rule is always a believer’s loyalty to a God Who is above the god of the state.

This is why Christians were thrown to the lions in ancient Rome. The earliest baptismal confession of the young Christian Church was “Jesus is Lord.” And that meant Caesar was not. This is why Hitler and Stalin first went after the church. The star of David and the cross were symbols of an authority higher than their own.

We all know about the battles over the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “under God,” the battles over manger scenes on public property. These are important, but they're skirmishes, mere skirmishes. The real battle is about whether God is Lord, or whether government is Lord. And make no mistake, if government can redefine or restrict our freedom of religion, our first freedom will be gone.

And, as our Founders understood, when that freedom is gone, we will, in short order, lose all of our other freedoms as well.

(This commentary originally aired June 30, 2010).

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES

"Freedom of Worship: An Anorexic Description of Our Rights" - Chuck Colson | Two Minute Warning | June 30, 2010;http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/the-chuck-colson-center/two-minute-warning/15391-freedom-of-worship-chuck-colson
"'Freedom of Worship' Worries" - Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra | Christianity Today | June 22, 2010; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/july/freedom-of-worship-worries.html
"Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship" - Michelle Boorstein | The Washington Post | June 22, 2010; http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/02/09/whats-the-difference-between-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-worship/2326
"Why 'Freedom of Worship' Is Not Enough" - Ashley Samelson | First Things | June 22, 2010; https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough

Alliance Defending Freedom - http://www.adflegal.org/
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty - http://www.becketfund.org/