Tuesday, January 27, 2015

This Is the Way... A Walk In the Snow: Character Counts In a Nation's Leaders

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about snow. This follows this post about Saudi Arabia. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

This Is the Way... A Walk In the Snow: Character Counts In a Nation's Leaders

Printer-friendly version

Today, during and after the recent impeachment hearings and trial, there is talk of "compartmentalization"—the notion that all the parts of one's life do not necessarily have to connect, that moral character and job competency do not have to be in one man. This is simply not the original American equation of republican ideal and it is certainly not biblically founded.

Historical episodes are much like a snowfield. Someone has to go first through the dual challenge of wonderment and danger. There comes a time in the human experience in which people, tribes and nations are confronted with this proverbial field of snow. I would like to share with you one man's walk in the snow on behalf of his nation. But before I do, let's understand who lays the field before us.
Long ago, God stated to Abraham that, "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed"(Genesis:12:3). It is to be understood that first and foremost this is speaking of spiritual salvation for all humanity through the birth of Abraham's descendant, Jesus Christ. But there is also an added aspect of historical note regarding the physical descendants of Abraham that should be considered. It is found in Genesis:48:19. In speaking of Abraham's grandchildren, the Bible says, "He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations."
This verse spells out a prophetic blessing upon Abraham's descendants that defines a role of historical greatness.These verses speak of a people who would become "great" and a kindred people who would become a "multitude of nations." We see spelled out verses that depict the modern rise of the special relationship communities of the United States (Manasseh) and the famous alliance of nations known as the British Commonwealth (Ephraim).
But greatness does not just occur. God utilizes men and women throughout human history to bring about His will and purpose. God intervenes in the human chronicle through the hearts and minds of people. Romans:13:1 exemplifies God's finger on the pulse of history by stating, "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."
Throughout the biblical narrative we think of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Tiberius and Herod. What about George Washington? No, he is not biblically mentioned by name, but can we consider that he was directly used by God? Was he "appointed" by God to a role in His plan of establishing the "greatness" of modern day Manasseh? A "greatness" that would be molded by his personal walk through the historical fresh snow laid before him at the dawn of the American Revolution? Let's peek back in history and understand the tracks that Washington laid for future generations to follow.
The Man Behind the Picture
Today, many people when confronted with George Washington, think of the man with the stern face painted by Gilbert Stuart that appears on America's one dollar bills. As a landed gentleman, he would become first a general and later the first president of the United States. This is indeed a limiting picture, and to limit Washington is to limit ourselves. Rather than being stuck with the visual picture of the colonnades of Mt. Vernon, let's understand that Washington was born in humbler surroundings, being born into a much lower rung of Virginia gentry. We might say towards the bottom.
At his father's early death, in accordance with the British custom, most of the inheritance of family domain went to his half-brother Lawrence. Washington's formal education was over at age 15. But he did an amazing thing. He wrote out a collection of European maxims which he titled "The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation." This exercise would instill in him a moral fabric in relating to other human beings. It would be his shining star to guide him. This is not too unlike the writing exercise the ancient kings of Israel were to perform. The instruction of Deuteronomy:17:18-20 states, "Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel."
God's law was more than just rules for rules' sake, but more about relationships. Relationships that would not separate men, but bring them together on the equal plane of "brethren." Washington's list is in no way holy writ, but it contains a lot of wisdom pertaining to personal dealings with others. Let's read a few of the rules he wrote:
"In the presence of others, sing not to yourself with a humming noise, nor drum with your fingers or feet." "Sleep not when others speak, sit not when others stand, speak not when you should hold your peace, walk not on when others stop." My favorite is, "Spit not in the fire, nor stoop low before it, neither put your hands into the flames to warm them, nor set your feet upon the fire especially if there be meat before it."
What is interesting is the sense of value placed on outgoing concern towards others. These "proverbs" of the classical era would offer Washington a sensitized moral compass of "justice, judgment and equity;" as mentioned in the Bible and offer "to the young man knowledge and discretion-A wise man will hear and increase learning"(Proverbs:1:4-5). At a time when colonial America was still inventing itself, this young man was likewise self-examining and personally inventive. He recognized that if he were to succeed and be a person of worth he would have to establish standards and values. Values that would work later in life for him-recognizing that you do not find your values in a trial or situation, but you take them into the arena with you. The common self invention of the man and the nation would cross paths on the snow field of history 40 years down the line.
Prepared For Future Battles
As a young man, Washington had burning ambition and a self-importance that moved him through the ranks of the colonial militia. His time spent in the French and Indian War would both prepare him for future battle and place a curb on his ego, as he experienced both triumph and failure. After the war, he married well, having taken Martha Custis to wife. At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, he became commander of the Continental Army. As an interesting part of focused leadership, he had the Declaration of Independence read aloud to every soldier so that he might know what was at stake.
This would be very important in the bumpy road to independence from the British Empire. Early on, he would be chased from Brooklyn, lose Manhattan, flee across New Jersey, and pick up a couple of victories at Princeton and Trenton. But always his biggest victory would be keeping the army together. Imagine an army composed of merchants, farmers, backwoodsmen, including every ethnic and racial group in America (still in some cases speaking their native tongue), all from 13 different sovereign states. Yankees from New England, Dutch from New York, Germans from Pennsylvania, Scots-Irish from the South, Swedes from Delaware, and African-Americans seeking a piece of the dream for liberty .
But all this would come to a grinding halt in the snows of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in the winter of 1777. Washington despaired, "The game will be pretty well up!" The British General Howe was outside Philadelphia, Congress had fled to Baltimore, and there before him in the snow was the sight of "men, without clothes, to cover their nakedness; without blankets to lay on; without shoes, by which their marches might be traced, by the blood from their feet." His army had shrunk to 3,000 men, and more were deserting daily. What had happened to that bright and wondrous picture of liberty? What had happened to the pure and glistening wonderment of government not based upon birth, but government based upon personal ability?
Like the snow, Washington now had to step out and make tracks where no man had gone before. Encouragement would come from a young, French nobleman, the Marquis de Lafayette. It is said that at one particularly low point the Marquis reminded his general that "the eyes of Europe are upon you!" Every step was being watched, every footprint in the snow was being analyzed by a world which had never known anything other than kings, emperors, czars and khans. Proverbs:29:18 says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Sometimes we need to remind one another exactly "why are we here?" In his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey calls it "beginning with the end in mind." Herbert Armstrong called it "keeping the big picture." Remember, you don't find your values in a trial, you take them in with you. First Corinthians 3:13 vividly reminds us, "Each one's work will become clear: for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is."
The Most Famous Man in the World
The "greatness factor" of this one man's personal walk through the snow was yet to come a few years down the line. It came in 1783. The war was won and the long drawn-out peace accord was finally ratified. What Washington did next would astound the world. He simply got off his horse and went home to his beloved Mt. Vernon. This made him the most famous man in the world. The greatest victory he accomplished was letting go of power. This had rarely been done before. The snow was fresh and Washington carefully and surely laid a great print for others to follow. He was the modern day Cincinnatus, the Latin farmer of Roman lore. According to history as it comes down to us, Cincinnatus had victoriously defended Rome against her enemies at her gate and was invited to become ruler. But, he went back to his farm saying only that he had done his duty. What would you have done?
In English history, having disposed of King Charles, Oliver Cromwell stayed on his horse at the head of the New Model Army and became Lord Protector. Napoleon a few years down the line would stay on his horse and go from being "first citizen of the republic" to Emperor. In the course of the American Revolution as sole commander, Washington had outlasted eight presidents of the Continental Congress. On December 23, 1783, at Annapolis, Maryland, Washington ceremoniously handed back to the president of Congress the parchment commission he had received in Philadelphia on June 15, 1775. He had never lost the vision. For this man, giving up power was more ennobling than winning a war. It is said that King George III asked the American painter Benjamin West what General Washington was likely to do when peace came. Would he stay with the army, would he become head of state? West replied, "Washington will probably return home to his farm." King George responded, "If Washington does that, he will become the most famous man in the world."
Rather than merely comparing Washington's example to Cincinnatus, let's focus on Christ's words in Matthew:20:25-28. "But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Whether or not Washington fully recognized it, he was following someone else's tracks that had been laid out long before his.
For the remainder of his life, George Washington realized he would have incredible responsibility in how he conducted himself and used his fame and notoriety. He would be called on again and again to "walk through the snow." In 1785, two years after the final peace treaty had been signed, with the country tottering in its disunited infancy under the Articles of Confederation, he stated, "I can foresee no evil greater than disunion." Here were 13 loosely confederated states of America now more afraid of one another than the nearby lingering shadow of the British Empire. How could they ever unite? As he would state, "the fate of unborn millions" would rest on their deliberations. Here was an individual of growth and invention that would spend his life in transformation from a British subject, to a man of the South from Virginia, to a Nationalist.
Character Does Count
But as all the wrinkles were slowly ironed away at Philadelphia's Constitutional Convention, a lingering nerve of contention remained before the delegates. Having cast off (in Colonial eyes) a tyrant, would they ever again dare invest authority in an executive power? Washington's powerful life example spoke louder than any good arguments. It would not be by his grasp for power or intellectual wit that he would ascend to the presidency—but simply by "quiet tracks in the snow" laid over a lifetime.
Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, thought the president's powers were "full, great, and greater than I was disposed to make them. Nor do I believe they would have been so great had not many of the members cast their eyes towards General Washington as President; and shaped their ideas of the Powers to be given a President by their opinions of his virtue." From the beginning America's concept of the presidency, was the idea of virtue—let's put it plainly—character. The standard would be—not simply what you do—but what you are. This was the only way a young and frightened nation could come to terms with trusting an executive leader. Washington's lifetime of self invention based upon his "Rules of Civility" had served him and the nation well.
Today, during and after the recent impeachment hearings and trial, there is talk of "compartmentalization"—the notion that all the parts of one's life do not necessarily have to connect, that moral character and job competency do not have to be in one man. This is simply not the original American equation of republican ideal and it is certainly not biblically founded. Notice the power of cause and effect as outlined in Proverbs:29:2: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Washington's stepping off his horse, and later his stepping away from the executive office after his second term, set forever the mode of America's greatness of being gallant enough to conquer the problems that lay in her path, but also to have the ability to muster the "right stuff" and go back home when the task was accomplished.
Snow is a wondrous attraction. So are the revolutions of history. What appears wondrous can take a sharp turn towards disaster. Many revolutions would follow the American experiment. Hope would turn to despair as tyrants of royal blood would be replaced with demagogues with radical blood flowing in their veins. Much of Latin America would devolve for nearly two centuries into military dictatorships. The great revolutions of France and Russia would go through stages of moderation to radicalism-ending with much of their citizenry losing their lives, because of the lack of a galvanizing example of moderation like Washington's. Imagine a "modern day Manasseh" whose civilians would report to the military or whose chief executive maintained total power for a lifetime. Then, think again of one man's influence as he walked in the snow for a nation to follow. WNP
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!
Login/Register to post comments

REDSTATE Conservatives Turn On Renee Ellmers On Abortion… But Why Not On Immigration?

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about Renee Ellmers. This follows this post about the U.S. president.This follows this post on HOW amnesty is funded in ways other than the DHS. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

REDSTATE Conservatives Turn On Renee Ellmers On Abortion… But Why Not On Immigration?

Immigration patriots already knew that North Carolina GOP congressthing Renee Ellmers was a traitor. Now the pro-lifers at RedState know it too. But will they continue to prioritize attacks on immigration patriots rather than a GOP Establishment that despises them?
VDARE.com is focused on immigration and the National Question—whether the U.S. can survive as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people. It does not take a position on abortion, and we know our writers and readers are on both (all) sides of the issue. But we are vitally interested in any clash between GOP leaders and the party’s base, because it is the GOP leaders who have systematically frustrated the base’s desire for patriotic immigration reform.
And Ellmers turned on the pro-life Republican base faster than the French government turned on free speech after the Islamic terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo. On the very eve of the annual March for Life, an event that brought half a million pro-life protesters to the Capitol, Ellmers waged an insurgent campaign within the Republican caucus to defeat a bill that would have banned late term abortions. [Abortion bill dropped amid concerns of female GOP lawmakers , by Ed O’Keefe, Washington Post, January 21, 2015] Thus, at the hands of a Southern Republican, the pro-choice movement can celebrate a victory and the already disorganized Republican caucus looks even more hapless [Planned Parenthood seizes on House GOP’s abortion bill retreat, by Sarah Ferris, The Hill, January 22, 2015]
The base is outraged. Jim Duncan, chairman of the Chatham County Republican Party, was apparently already looking at a primary challenge to Ellmers but his incipient rebellion now has serious momentum behind it. Roll Call is reporting that her abortion vote may mean Ellmers will face a “bruising primary from the conservative wing of her party in 2016 [Renee Ellmers May Face Primary Challenge, by Emily Cahn, January 23, 2015].
The Respectable Rightists of RedState are especially outraged. Erick Erickson spat that Ellmers is a “damnable liar” who “must be ruined politically” for claiming “she’d vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act after she ensured it would not pass.” He proclaimed that “the pro-life movement must stop being the whores of the GOP” and mused, “Maybe it is time for a third party to give the GOP competition” [The Pro-Life Movement Must Stop Being Whores of the Republican Party, RedState, January 22, 2015].
Thomas Crown, a former Director of RedState vowed: “I will never vote Republican again. Not for any reason… today, the Party stands for indifference in the face of a man-made cataclysm of flesh and blood, and for apathy toward good and cooperation with evil.” [The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy, by Thomas Crown, RedState, January 22, 2015]
RedState Commissar Leon Wolf wrote:
41153-bruce6pm-640x360[1]Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC ) was swept into office in 2010 on a wave of Tea Party support and based on the fact that she had the good fortune to have a Democrat incumbent who let himself get videotaped assaulting some college kids. The video in question went nationally viral and Ellmers’ election became something of a cause celebre in conservative circles. When she narrowly pulled off the victory, people expected great things from her.
However, since her election, she has been one of the worst members of the GOP caucus…Ellmers is either lying to her constituents about being pro-life or she has become a poltroon on this issue now that the GOP has taken control of the house and she figures she can increase her district’s share of the federal feeding trough… It would be better to have a Democrat in this seat than a cancer in the Republican caucus.”
[Renee Ellmers is Worse Than a Democrat, January 21, 2015]
And RedState regular Aaron Gardner triggered progressives around the country by demanding of Ellmers, “Tell me why you are worthy of this life you have been given, Representative.” [Is Renee Ellmers Worthy of Life?, January 23, 2015]
Nevertheless, it’s hard to take these kinds of militant statements seriously when we review RedState’s recent record on immigration. After all, Erickson has made some excellent comments in the past about the baleful impact of consultants on the Republican Party, but has apparently retreated on the issue now that the Republicans might have the potential to do something about it.
Significantly, RedState purged Daniel Horowitz for his excellent immigration updates and issued an abrupt volte face on the immigration issue. Leon Wolf openly urged the Republican Party to pass Amnesty as quickly as possible. Wolf also whined about the “toxicity of immigration rhetoric” and even about the “racism” of referring to George Bush or John McCain as “Jorge Arbusto” or “Juan McCain.” When someone posted a link to VDARE.com in the comments section, it was deleted and Wolf congratulated himself for it.
As for Aaron Gardner, he previously wrote that the likes of Glenn Beck providing showy charity for the Obama administration’s orchestrated “Central American refugee crisis” was really about “Christians living their faith” and called out the American Thinker for criticizing it [On Immigration, the Border, and Dana Loesch, The American Thinker Isn’t Thinking or American,” by Aaron Gardner, RedState, July 21, 2014].
Gardner concern-trolled by claiming “This sort of rhetoric does nothing but empower the left on immigration” and “will lend further credence to the liberal caricature of conservatives hating brown people.”
But it seems more accurate that the average person will be angrier at a conservative blogger demanding a female congresswoman justify her very existence than they will be about American Thinker’s criticism of Glenn Beck wanting moral credit for crying on his website again. And truly “living their faith” would require these Christians to pay a bit of attention to Matthew 6:2-6:8.
Ironically, immigrant Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, now a Mexican-American dual citizen, is pretty overt about his frankly racialist rationale for pushing mass immigration. “Conservatives hating brown people” is a media caricature but it seems pretty accurate that many “brown people” hate conservatives.
This holds true not just on economic issues like increasing spending but also, in increasing numbers, on abortion and other “white” cultural issues.
Exit polls after the 2012 elections show that “big majorities of Latinos across the country… agreed that abortion should be legal” and that their support for abortion exceeded that of voters in general. [Latinos Endorse Legal Abortion, by Richard Morin, ABC News, November 6, 2012] Allegedly “socially conservative” and “natural Republican” Hispanics are also one of the most important drivers behind the country’s rising number of out-of-wedlock births.
If Erickson was serious about a Third Party that would be defined by the pro-life issue, we have news for him—such a party already exists. It’s the Constitution Party and ran former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode as its presidential nominee in 2012.
But Goode’s patriotic position on immigration was just as strong as his pro-life stance. And any serious effort to have an independent “pro-life” political movement would require immigration patriot backing to have any chance to get anywhere.
As much as RedState hates to admit it, elections aren’t just about ideas—they are about demographics, and Hispanics will never vote for them.
The pro-life movement needs patriotic immigration reform and the demographic base it represents—especially if pro-lifers are trying to be independent of Establishment Republicans. It’s true that some immigration patriot groups are progressive and overtly pro-choice, just as many pro-lifers are progressive except on the single issue of immigration. However, the mass base of any political movement would require a coalition of those groups that are currently perceived as expendable by the Beltway Right.
But is RedState really interested in preventing abortion or just making sure conservatives stay focused on issues other than immigration? In the past, Leon Wolf has attacked Tom Tancredo because of his alleged “ties” to immigration restrictionist groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform and figures like Dr. John Tanton [Tom Tancredo’s Unsavory Backers, RedState Archive, 2008]. In fact, of course, as Tancredo himself noted in 2013, the former Colorado Congressman has a “100% rating from National Right to Life and a 99% rating from the American Conservative Union” [Immigration and the Pro-Life Movement, Townhall, February 17, 2013]. If a strong position on immigration cancels out a perfect pro-life voting record, then it’s fair to say that a weak position on immigration is more important to people like Wolf (why?) than a strong and consistent pro-life position on abortion.
Moreover, the real action on the abortion issue is not taking place in Congress or even the state legislatures. The pro-life movement has actually had notable success in the last few years by working to shut down abortion clinics directly, by exposing regulatory violations etc., rather than counting on the political process. The result has been a dramatic decline in the number of abortion clinics open throughout the country [Not Just ‘Marching for Life’ Anymore, WND, January 22, 2015], If the goal is to “save lives” as such, pro-life champions like those at RedState could be doing more to popularize these kinds of tactics.
Therefore, it’s hard to take this kind of tantrum seriously. RedState and its writers are no doubt sincere in their pro-life convictions. But it appears that they don’t really want to build a populist coalition that could challenge the Beltway Right. It looks like the abortion issue just provides a way to get grassroots conservatives to be angry at a faux Establishment, while leaving the donor-driven and immigration-obsessed real Establishment in place.
The real story is not RedState’s empty threats to destroy the Republican Party. It’s the RedStaters’ unwillingness to seriously engage with the immigration issue—even if that is the only way to stop politicians like Renee Ellmers from taking the GOP base for granted.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Editorial: Do Immigration Patriots only want to vent about non-enforcement of laws?


Do Immigration Patriots only want to vent about non-enforcement of laws?

According to www.NumbersUSA.com:

Debate over some bills is running longer than expected, so it's still uncertain when Sen. McConnell will bring the House-passed DHS spending bill to the Senate floor. But, Politico is reporting that GOP Leaders are looking for alternative solutions to stopping the President's executive overreach should the DHS spending bill not pass.
"Top Republicans are exploring ways of escaping their political jam on immigration, with steps that could avoid a funding cutoff for the Department of Homeland Security while letting conservatives vent their anger at President Barack Obama."

-- Politico, "GOP seeking Plan B on immigration", Jan. 21, 2015
NumbersUSA President Roy Beck protests that thinking:
We aren't interested in venting anger; we're interested in results that protect American workers and their families from the wage depression of Mr. Obama's actions.

Obama Threatens to Veto Pro-Life Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the VETO threat against banning tax payer funded abortions. This follows this post about pro-choice Catholics. For  two very interesting books click HERE
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

Obama Threatens to Veto Pro-Life Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/23/15
Yesterday, the House passed legislation that will put in place a complete ban on taxpayer funding of abortions that ensures abortions are not directly funded in any federal governmental program or department. The president says he will veto it.
The legislation combines several policies that must be enacted every year in Congressional battles and puts them into law where they will not be in jeopardy of being overturned every time Congress changes hands from pro-life lawmakers to those who support abortions.
The House voted 242-179 for the bill with 239 Republicans and three Democrats voting to ban taxpayer funding of abortions under HR7 while 178 Democrats and one Republican voted against it.
Despite strong support for the bill and expected passage in the Senate, as well as strong public opinion , pro-abortion President Barack Obama says he will veto the legislation.
barackobama19“I am deeply committed to protecting this core constitutional right, and I believe that efforts like H.R. 7, the bill the House considered today, would intrude on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today,” Obama said in a statement objecting to the bill.
Obama thinks the common sense legislation infringed on a “woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health.”
“The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families and their doctors,” he said. “…Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons.”
But, according to a Marist poll released today, 68 percent of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.
The bill has been around a few years but has only been approved in the House thanks to a pro-abortion Senate. The House voted 227-188 for the bill in 2014 and, on May 4, 2011, the House passed HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, on a 251-175 vote with Republicans voting 235-0 for the bill and Democrats voting 175-16 against it.
Now that Republicans have taken over the Senate from pro-abortion Democrats, the bill is finally expected to receive a vote in the upper chamber.
Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, spoke on the House floor during debate and said it would help hold President Barack Obama accountable by ensuring no taxpayer funds are used to pay for abortions.
A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.
The bill will also mitigate concerns about abortion funding in the various loopholes in the Obamacare national health care bill that various pro-life organizations warned about during debate on the law. The legislation did not contain language banning funding of abortions in its provisions and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would fix that problem.
The National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to House members urging support for the legislation that explains how the bill will help:
At the time Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, an array of long-established laws, including the Hyde Amendment, had created a nearly uniform policy that federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with narrow exceptions. Regrettably, provisions of the 2010 Obamacare health law ruptured that longstanding policy. Among other objectionable provisions, the Obamacare law authorized massive federal subsidies to assist many millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that between 2015 and 2024, $726 billion will flow from the federal Treasury in direct subsidies for Obamacare health plans. In September, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that confirmed that elective abortion coverage is widespread in federally subsidized plans on the Obamacare exchanges. In the 27 states (plus D.C.) that did not have laws in effect that restrict abortion coverage, over one thousand exchange plans covered abortion, the report found. (See “GAO report confirms elective abortion coverage widespread in Obamacare exchange plans,” http://www.nrlc.org/communications/releases/2014/release091614/)
Some defenders of the Obamacare law originally insisted that this was not really “federal funding” of abortion because a “separate payment” would be required to cover the costs of the abortion coverage. NRLC and other pro-life groups dismissed this as a mere bookkeeping gimmick that sharply departed from the principles of the Hyde Amendment. This discussion of the significance of the “separate payment” has been rendered rather academic, since it has become evident that the Obama Administration is ignoring the two-payment requirement anyway.
taxpayerfunding3During 2013, in the same ignore-the-law mode, the Obama Administration interpreted a provision of Obamacare to authorize the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to collect health care premiums from members of Congress and their staffs, along with subsidies from the legislative branch bureaucracy, for purchase of private health insurance plans that cover elective abortions. The OPM (under instructions from the White House) has gone forward with this plan despite a longstanding law (the Smith Amendment, after sponsor Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ) that explicitly prohibits OPM from spending one penny on administrative expenses connected with the purchase of any federal employee health plan that includes any coverage of abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The Smith Amendment is the law that continues to prohibit inclusion of abortion coverage in the health plans of over 8 million federal employees and dependents. Yet, according to research conducted by the office of Congressman Smith, of 70 plans now available to members of Congress and congressional staff, 59 cover elective abortions.
H.R. 7 would codify the principles of the Hyde Amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, with respect both to longstanding federal health programs (Medicaid, SCHIP, FEHB, etc.) and to the new programs created by the Obamacare law. Under H.R. 7, for plan years beginning after December 31, 2015, exchange-participating health plans that cover abortion would not be eligible for the federal subsidies. Until then, the bill will revise Obamacare language to eliminate secrecy about abortion coverage, allowing consumers to be fully informed about abortion coverage and the surcharges for such coverage on plans sold on the exchanges.
Among the longstanding provisions to be codified by H.R. 7 is the “D.C. Hyde Amendment,” which is the prohibition on the use of government funds to pay for abortion in the Federal District (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), which for decades (with brief interruptions) has been part of the annual appropriations bill that covers the District. Most of the objections to this policy misconstrue or misrepresent the constitutional status of the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, the District is exclusively a federal jurisdiction. Article I says that Congress alone exercises “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the Federal District. “Non-federal funds” are a fiction, because under current federal law, all government funds in the Federal District are governed by the federal appropriations bills.
A Member’s vote on H.R. 7 will essentially define his or her position, for or against federal funding of abortion, for the foreseeable future.
Pro-life groups including Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, Liberty Counsel and Family Research Council also support the legislation.

Wknd Box Office: The Boy Next Door, Mortdecai, Two Days, One Night

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: The Boy Next Door, Mortdecai, Two Days, One Night

By Debbie Schlussel
Another abysmal set of choices in new movies debuting at theaters today.


* “The Boy Next Door“: Absolutely awful. Yet another in a long line of horrible movies starring J-Lo a/k/a Jennifer Lopez. This movie reportedly had a $4 million budget, and it looks like it. Lopez plays a high school teacher who has sex with a 20-year-old high school student who just moved in next door (he is 20 and still in high school because he took time off after his parents both died). The 20-year-old begins stalking, threatening, and blackmailing her because she won’t have a relationship with him. And he begins inserting himself into her life. Not only is the story absurd and the lines cheesier than a double cheeseburger, but the movie seems to make excuses for all of the female teachers who’ve had sex with their high school students. The movie seems to say that these teachers are the victims, that they are stalked and preyed upon by crazy male students. Incredibly stupid and high quality Gitmo torture material.

* “Mortdecai“: This wasn’t nearly as bad as I expected, but it was still bad enough and kind of lame. Most of the humor wasn’t funny, but there were a few funny lines and moments. It stars the two self-hating Americans In Name Only (AINOs) and Europhiles Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow, both of them loathsome. In this movie, both get to be what they pretend to be in real life: pretentious, wealthy English people. The movie is in the style of the late ’60s and early ’70s Peter-Sellers-style madcap comedy, but doesn’t even come close. Most of the jokes are dopey and lame, along with the “plot.”
Depp is an English lord who is a scoundrel underworld art dealer, nearly broke and in debt to the tune of millions in taxes to the English government. An MI5 agent, known to Depp and his wife, Paltrow, enlists Depp to find a stolen painting on which the Nazis reportedly put the numbers to a Swiss bank account. Depp flies all over the world to try to get the painting and secure it away from a Syrian-trained terrorist and keep the terrorist from getting the money in the Swiss bank account. Accompanying Depp is his butler/bodyguard (Paul Bettany).
Believe me that my description makes this movie look much better than it is. I’m being very generous when I give it . . .

* “Two Days, One Night [Deux Jours, Une Nuit]“: This French film with English subtitles takes place in Belgium. It’s your typical left-wing anti-business movie. 9/11 truther Marion Cotillard plays a woman who has been on sick leave from her working-class factory job, due to depression. While she was away, her employer realized it could get all of the necessary work done with 16 employees, rather than the usual 17 including her. And the plant foreman doesn’t like her.
When she seeks to return to work, the union has a vote between a large bonus or allowing Cotillard to get her job back. Most employees vote for the bonus. But Cotillard’s employer allows a second vote, and with the encouragement of her devoted husband, Cotillard visits her fellow employees over the weekend to try to convince them to vote for her to keep her job instead of them getting the bonus. Throughout, she’s tearful, whiny, and popping pills.
Not only is it depressing, but it’s your typical anti-capitalist, anti-free-market movie depicting the narrative of “evil” businesses pitting poor working-class employees against each other in order to try to fight for their jobs. And the movie is slow and boring, to boot. No way I’d pay to see this.

Friday, January 23, 2015

World News and Trends: Saudi oil and U.S. dependency

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about sodomy. This follows this post about abortion. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

World News and Trends: Saudi oil and U.S. dependency

Printer-friendly version

With the Middle East holding the majority of the world's oil, what's to come when conflicts boil over?

The recent death of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia created some concern from those nations that are dependent on Saudi oil. A top Saudi diplomat reassured all oil-dependent countries that the Saudis would pump oil "to the best of our capability, with a reasonable price" (CNN, Aug. 2).
"Saudi Arabia holds a quarter of the world's known oil supplies, and crude futures set a new record of $61.57 a barrel after news of Fahd's death. 'I would like to reassure you of our government's pledge to continue King Fahd's legacy of providing the world with a stable and secure source of energy,' Rihab Massoud, the Saudi charge d'affaires in Washington, told reporters" (ibid.).
On March 24, 30 prominent Americans wrote a letter to President George W. Bush about an impending oil crisis. Former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney and others, including 12 retired generals and admirals, five former secretaries of defense and several retired senators and representatives signed the letter.
Oil is critical for the future of the Western world. Yet the Middle East, rich with that lifeblood of the world's economy, is a boiling stew of conflict of almost every kind. Bible prophecy tells us that it will eventually boil over, igniting a horrendous end-time conflagration that will bring the human race to the verge of extinction.
The only thing that will spare us, in fact, is Jesus Christ's return to earth to save us from ourselves (Matthew:24:21-22). If you'd like to learn more, request or download our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy . (Source: CNN.)
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

Youth Misery Index Grows More Than 50% Under Obama Administration

A timely post about from www.yaf.org about the Youth Misery Index. This follows this post about race-based programs.  
You can follow me here.

Youth Misery Index Grows More Than 50% Under Obama Administration                Posted by Ashley Pratte

YAF logo PR Clear
Youth Misery Index Grows More Than 50% Under Obama Administration
The Dismal Reality for Our Nation's Young People
RESTON, VA- Young America's Foundation has released its Youth Misery Index (YMI) numbers for 2014, and it's a record high of 106.5. The Youth Misery Index (YMI) is calculated by adding youth unemployment, student loan debt, and national debt (per capita) numbers.  Young people are experiencing hardships like never before under the Obama administration, and this generation is especially suffering the consequences of this administration's leftist policies.
Youth unemployment in 2014 was 18.1 percent (18.1 on YMI), with almost six million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 not in school or work.  Many young people are simply giving up on finding employment.
Student loan debt for 2014 rings in at a record-breaking $30,000 (30.0 on YMI).  Student debt has risen at an average of six percent per year since 2008, and today, 70% of college seniors graduate with student loan debt.  In addition, the job market still hasn't recovered, leaving many recent graduates with little or no income to pay back their loans.
National debt per capita for 2014 is the highest it's ever been at $58,437 (58.4 on YMI).  Young people will be stuck paying for government debt they had no part in creating, and they'll have to do it with less discretionary income than ever before because of record high levels of student loan debt.
Add it all up and the YMI comes out to an astonishing 106.5 up from 98.6 in 2013. 
As government continues to expand under President Obama's leadership, so does the Youth Misery Index.  Since 2008, the YMI has increased by 53.7 percent, the highest increase under any President, making Obama the worst President for youth economic opportunity.

For further information or to request an interview, please email Ashley Pratte at apratte@yaf.org