Author Archives: Editor

College Group “Live Action” Needs Your Help

Lila Rose is a student activist at UCLA who has dedicated herself to building a culture of life and ending abortion. At age fifteen, Lila founded Live Action, which is now a growing nonprofit with several chapters in California. Live Action is a youth-led organization and uses new media to educate and mobilize both local and national audiences to demand accountability from the abortion industry and human rights for the pre-born.

Lila has led numerous undercover stings through Live Action, exposing corruption and illegal activity within Planned Parenthood, the Nation’s number one Abortion provider. “The Mona Lisa Project,” vividly illustrates how Planned Parenthood’s ‘abortion-first mentality’ leads it to disregard state laws meant to protect young girls, instead sending them back into the arms of their sexual abusers. It has prompted officials in several states to take action against Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood affiliates are the subject of ongoing investigations in Indiana and Alabama, and the Tennessee legislature recently voted to end up to $1.1 million in taxpayer subsidies to the abortion provider. Similarly, the Alabama Department of Health put the Birmingham clinic under severe investigation as a result of the undercover video taped there. The clinic has been put on a one-year probation as the investigation continues to uncover illegal and wrongful proceedings. Also released is a collection of phone calls made too the Planned Parenthood Development offices under the name of “The Racism Project,” which captured Planned Parenthood employees behaving hospitably to and receiving donations from an actor posing as an outspoken racist.

Lila is currently releasing the “The Rosa Acuna Project” which reveals Planned Parenthood counselors and abortionists manipulating patients and giving medical misinformation.

In fall 2006, as a freshman at UCLA, Lila founded the (free) pro-life student magazine The Advocate, administered through the new UCLA student chapter of Live Action. The Advocate has since gone national and is distributed at over 80 different high school and college campuses across the country with a circulation of nearly 100,000.

Lila reaches tens of thousands of people every month with the pro-life message through the Liveaction.org and Herestheblood.com web sites.

Live Action needs your help. They need to raise $125,000 by January 17 to obtain matching funds and to adequately fund their investigations of Planned Parenthood as well as their various publications and projects.
Live Action has raised $99,313 and needs $25,687 more. Please consider donating to this great work. The Live Action web address is http://www.liveaction.org.

Christmas and World Peace

By Daniel Downs

“Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:12)

During the days of Jesus, Augustus Caesar was the acclaimed prince of peace. This praise was without critical comment. Peace in the Roman Empire was not won by reasoned negotiation but by the power of the sword. In the book of Revelation, John sees a rider on a white horse. The rider went conquering and to conquer. This vision describes Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and many other leaders whose peace was packaged for subjugated peoples in terms of existence. Peace meant “my way or else.” A more accurate way of putting it would be don’t make me come back to deal with rebellion or with disruption of the flow of taxes or trade. Maintain law and order as well as tax payments and all will be well. That was the peace of Pax Romana.

In our modern Pax Americanus, the substance behind rhetoric of world peace is often about conflict over trade and disputes about the flow of goods like wheat, oil, and weapons. It is true that concern about the health and well-being of others is debated and money spent to resolve perceived problems. Yet, such concerns remain secondary to the kind of peace necessary for the continued growth in the global economy.

The issue of Middle East peace is one example. The on-going conflict between Israel, Palestinians, and Arabs may be religious and territorial in nature but our contemporary Caesars see the problem as an unnecessary disruption to the flow of goods regionally and globally. The not-so-powerful see the achievement of peace in the Middle East as an end to poverty among Palestinians. Others see poor Palestinians as one weapon of war against the continued existence of the Zionist state, which also means Arabs could have ended Palestinian poverty long ago.

In Pax Americana, liberal special interest groups often criticize Christian conservatives for focusing on politics rather than on the moral reform of individuals in society. Although valid to a point, the criticism is based on the belief that religion is not relevant to public policy affecting all aspects of daily life. The source of this belief is humanism or enlightenment rationalism exemplified by French intellectuals. This view was not held by most early Americans, which is one reason the liberal belief is erroneous. Because religion is both a world view encompassing life now and hereafter as well as a means to resolving problems, religion is crucial to politics.

In fact, religion is likely the only source to genuine peace.

Some will find such as statement outrageous because they see religion as one of the primary sources of violent human abuses, global conflicts, and war. Yet, the same can be said of secularists who have followed Marx such as communist leaders around the world. To the credit of secular statists, hundreds of millions of citizens as well as enemies have been tortured, maimed, and killed.

The mantra of secularists has been “you cannot legislate morality,” which by the way is the basis of peace. The opposite was held by the founders who regarded legislating immorality as an anti-law act. America’s inheritance of the rule of law concept goes back at least to the biblical accounts of the legal and consensus covenant between God and Israel and the development of their law codes and governing institutions. These in turn influenced the development of constitutional law in the American colonies.

The American experiment was the application of previous centuries of the Protestant (Puritan) struggle for religious freedom constituted by culture and law. The testimony of history is religion and bureaucratic power always result in human injustice, institutional led violence, and war. As noted above, the problem is not limited to religion but to ideologies instituted through power of governance. As the horrible news reported daily by the media proves, Calvinist-Puritans are still right about inherent depravity of humanity. It was this self-evident truth that led to the development of written legal compacts of which the US Constitution is one part and contract laws.

As the early Americans understood, peace is achieved by doing what is right according to the law of God and of nature. When laws, public policy, and behavior conform to this law, the result has to be peace. Only then will there be peace on earth and perpetual good will toward men, women, boys, and girls. International terrorism, wars, domestic violence, poverty, greed, envy, revenge, and the like will subside. Goods and services naturally will flow unhindered and without imperialist manipulations. Populations will control themselves without a death culture operated by paternal elitists.

That is exactly why the human race requires salvation by the only real prince of peace—Jesus Christ. Jesus entered the world on a peace mission. Many then and now see his death as mission failure. However, his death accomplished terms of reconciliation between God and humanity that know one else could achieve. His death paid the eternal price required to satisfy God’s justice concerning all of our moral crimes. He was raised from death in order to officiate over its implementation for every human. By accepting God terms of peace, each and all people will learn the way of peace. That is the reason Jesus commissioned his apostles to make disciples of all nations. Only then could there possibly be lasting peace on earth.

Many religions pursue peace as at least one, if not, the primary goal. However, most religious never really obtain peace with God. They miss the requirements of divine justice by only focusing on the necessary behaviors for right standing under God’s rightful rule. The problem is God cannot acquit (forgive) moral crimes committed any more than human judges do. The penalty for crimes committed must be paid. Good behavior before or after a moral crime is not sufficient to pay for the crime committed against God’s law. As the prophets and apostles proclaimed, “The soul that sins it shall die.” That is the price Jesus paid. His lordship guarantees the resources necessary to live right before God and thereby achieve the peace we all desire. Peace with God–the starting point to world peace.

To those who seek peace, Merry Christmas.

Rep. Austria On Economic Policies of Lame Duck Congress

By Rep. Steve Austria

Last Thursday, the House approved an agreement reached between President Obama and Congressional Republican leadership to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. The tax package ensures that those tax rates will not increase on January 1, 2011 and is extended for two years. It also includes a cut in the pay roll tax, establishes an estate tax rate of 35 percent and provides for a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits.

Many in Congress, like myself, would have preferred a permanent extension bringing more certainty to the financial and business markets but this may be the best opportunity we had to ensure that there would not be a tax increase. If we hadn’t taken action before the end of the year we would have seen significant tax hikes on small businesses and hard-working families.

This bill will help bring some certainty to the markets, which is needed now to grow the economy and create new jobs. When Speaker Boehner and House Republicans take over in January, our immediate focus will be to eliminate wasteful Washington spending and reduce the debt.

Appropriations

This year, Congress failed to enact any of the 12 appropriations measures or pass a budget to set spending levels. Instead, Congress has relied on short-term funding bills to keep the government running as they debated whether to punt the issue to the next Congress or consider a comprehensive appropriations measure, or omnibus. Late last week, Senate Democrats attempted to push a massive, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that included additional funding for a controversial health care bill and funding for more than 6,000 earmarks. The bill was pulled from consideration due to strong opposition to its cost.

Last night, the House agreed to a continuing resolution measure to keep the government operating until March of next year.

Blogger Note: As U.S. Representative Austria mentioned above, a Pelosi-Reid led Congress hasn’t passed a national budget since entering office. They seemed more interested in ramming their special interest projects like socialist health care policy and gay rights through the legislative process than mundane national interests like national budget. Socialist and humanist agendas cannot be funded by something as restrictive as a budget or a balanced budget.

More important for us “little stinky people,” whose odor liberals like Sen. Reed cannot stand, was their failure to make tax cuts permanent. The only reason this is important is the fact that all previous temporary tax cuts have failed to stimulate the economy as claimed. During economic downturns (not to mention great recessions), people hold on to the extra cash while waiting for the economy to rebound. Surely the snooty liberals like Pelosi and Reid known this. According to some economists, Americans only spend the extra cash gained from tax cuts when those cuts are permanent. Now that millions are out of work, out of their homes, and out of cash thanks in part to ACORN supporting Democrats, I suspect the economists may see a slight exception to the rule.

Senate’s Christmas Gift, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” To Gay Lobby

By Col. Bill Spencer

The steady, incessant drumbeat of the homosexual lobby won’t be silenced by the repeal of the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision. It seems the drums finally got to the American people — 65 of your senators voted to end the ban this weekend. The homosexual activists’ fight for cultural acceptance of a particular behavior will go on. You’ll need some earplugs because the drums will continue.

Since the advent of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1993, no idea or position forwarded by homosexuals has been tied to improved mission readiness and effectiveness — none. The media’s sound bite that there would be a loss of skilled personnel if the policy remained was nothing more than a smoke screen. The political reality is that we have a commander in chief who has never served in the military who had promised repeal to a special-interest support group. And Democratic majorities in the House and Senate could make it happen, regardless of the fact that the 111th Congress has fewer veterans than any Congress in history.

What can change this now? Sadly, I think only a future war will have us rethink how we best organize our troops to fight and win wars. At that time, cooler heads will prevail, and we’ll determine who best should be fielded to defend us. The social curiosity that will have been the openly gay service experience will vanish as the nation — at great cost — rediscovers the real purpose for having a military.

But for today, I fear that our military members in the field are left with these thoughts: “Does my country not think of me that much? Does the country think it should hobble its forces in the field with these distractions during time of war? Does the country require us to deal with this, as well? Am I indeed a patriot without a country? What moral madness awaits us next? When bullets are flying at me, and everyone back home is apparently just thinking about themselves and their own private behaviors, it’s too much to ask of me to sacrifice my life.”

I ask you, fellow citizen, after Saturday’s vote, would you give your life for our Senate? Would you give your life for our president? Or, would you go home to your family? Sadly, you know the answers already. If you never made a phone call or never entered the debate on this issue, it’s too late to care now. You have just received a 2010 Christmas present from the United States Senate. Inside, please find some really good earplugs, for the drumbeat will continue. Whether you choose to put them in your ears is entirely up to you.

Col. Bill Spencer (Ret.) served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 29 years. He is now a family policy council representative at Focus on the Family.

First published by the title “With ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ It’s Too Late to Care Now” by Focus on the Family, December 20, 2010

Dayton Development Coalition Scam May Be Coming To An end

By John Mitchel

RE: “Officials to review coalition’s funding”, Dayton Daily News, December 18, 2010: For years
our public servants have been writing blank checks to the Dayton Development Coalition on the
pretense that they and they alone are responsible for “saving” jobs at Wright Patterson. Rarely, if ever
do the Coalition or the politicians give credit to Wright Patt leadership or the folks that actually do the
work that has established Wright Patterson as a national treasure.

Instead they heap credit on themselves and the Coalition’s President and CEO who was paid $285,000
in 2005 — that’s about double what the Governor of Ohio earns and more than the Vice-president of the
United States. And don’t believe the lie that those exorbitant salaries and bonuses are not funded with
taxpayer dollars. You see, a basic principal of finance and economics teaches us that money is “fungible,”
or is universally exchangeable between two obligations, in this case between public corruption and national
defense or local infrastructure. Unfortunately the corrupt politicians and their insider sycophants at the
Coalition are the big winners here.

However it looks as though enough is enough and at least some elected officials are demanding transparency
at the Coalition and elsewhere. It’s time to clean out the barn and shutting down the Dayton Development
Coalition would be a good place to start.

Other commentary and analysis by John Mitchel may read at www.reformcongress.com.

Santa’s Naughty-and Nice-List of American Business

The previous post titled “Poll Shows Most American For Christmas” reported that 80% of Americans either celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday or think it should be. The same Americans also think it Christmas should publicly honored at our public institutions and businesses. Given this level of support for celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday, I suspect most Americans would favor the efforts of the American Family Association’s to pressure retailers and other businesses into treating Christmas as … well as … the birthday humanity’s redeemer as celebrated by Christians.

That is why XCJ again posts the <a href=Naught and Nice list created by the American Family Association. This year, the list includes companies who are FOR Christmas, those Marginalizing Christmas, and those AGAINST Christmas. It is hoped readers who are for Christmas will not patronize business who are attempting to marginalize it or who are flatly against Christmas.

Companies FOR Christmas Marginalizing Companies Companies AGAINST
Amazon.com
Bass Pro Shops
Bed Bath & Beyond
Belk
Best Buy
Big Lots
Books-A-Million
Cabella’s
Collective Brands
Costco
Dick’s Sporting Goods
Dilliards
Family Dollar
Dollar General
H.E.B. Stores
Hallmark
Harris Teeter Stores
Hobby Lobby
JC Penney
JoAnn Fabrics & Crafts Stores
Kmart
Kohl’s
Kroger
Lowe’s
Macy’s
Meijer
Menard’s
Michael’s Stores
Neiman Marcus
Nordstrom
Office Max
Petsmart
Pier One Imports
Publix
QVC
Rite Aid
Sears
Scheels Sporting Goods
Super D Drug Stores
Target
Toys R Us
Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club
Bath & Body Works
Dollar Tree
Hy-Vee Stores
Old Navy
Limited Brands
Safeway
Starbucks
Walgreens
Whole Foods
Banana Republic
Barnes & Noble
CVS Pharmacy
Foot Locker
Gap Stores
Hancock Fabrics
NASCAR
L.L. Bean
Office Depot
Radio Shack
Staples
SUPERVALU
Victoria’s Secret

Reviewing last year’s naughty and nice list, a number businesses have lost the spirit of Christmas while some others lost the spirit of the Grinch. For example, Kroger and Costco must have been visited by the spirit of Christmas because both are on the FOR Christmas list. Old Navy is a tough nut crack. Last year the Old Navy Corporation regarded religious connotations of the season as bad for business. This its retail stores are begrudgingly acknowledging Christmas exists, but the corporate retailer did move up from flat out against to marginalizing the Christian-oriented holiday. A few examples of retailers who acquired the secular bah-hum-bug spirit are Walgreen’s and Office Depot. Walgreen’s went from For to Marginal. This may have been the result of some problem faced during the past year or two. Not everyone handles economic recessions equally well either. The Christmas spirit among corporate leaders at Office Depot have been soured. This is reflected having become oppositional to Christmas as a non-secular holiday. Let’s hope bah-hum-bug soon changes to a merry Christmas perspective.

A positive development is the dwindling number of businesses oppositional to Christmas. The Examiner reported 80% of American retailers think being for Christmas is good for business. The National Federation of Retailers agrees. Because 91% of Americans celebrate his birth on Christmas, they believe being pro-Christmas will increase sales by about 2.3 percent.

At least the wise men from the East believed it was a good idea to give gifts to celebrate his birth. Hopefully, AFA’s efforts will inspire Americans and American businesses to advance the cause of the babe born in the manager on Christmas day.

Merry Christmas!

Poll Shows Most Americans For Christmas

It becomes a hot-button issue this time every year: Should religious symbols be displayed on public land, or is that a violation of the long-standing separation between church and state? While legal battles continue to arise, Americans still overwhelmingly support such displays.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 74% of Adults say religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah Menorahs and Muslim Crescents should be allowed on public land. Only 17% disagree and feel these symbols should not be allowed.

Eighty percent (80%) of American Adults also favor celebrating religious holidays in the public schools, another area subject to repeated legal challenge. This includes 43% who believe all religious holidays should be celebrated in the schools and 37% who think only some of those holidays should be recognized. The question did not specify which holidays should be celebrated and which should be excluded.
Fourteen percent (14%) are opposed to celebrating any religious holidays in the schools.

An overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and for most of those who celebrate, it’s a religious holiday rather than a secular one despite the strong commercial overtones of the season.

Very few Americans are offended when someone wishes them a “Merry Christmas,” but most are more likely to say “Happy Holidays” to someone else rather than risk offending them. They also prefer being greeted by store signs that say “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays.”

Source: Ramussen Reports, December 14, 2010

AFA Targets Chase For Anti-Christmas Policy On Bank Decorations

JP Morgan Chase has strictly ordered all of its banks to take down any and all Christmas decorations that have not been supplied by company headquarters. This includes the mandatory removal of all Christmas trees from bank lobbies.

According to internal Chase documents the American Family Association has received, every bank has “received approved holiday decorations in your December One Box. These are the only (emphasis in original) decorations that may be displayed in the public areas of your branch. If you have any other decorations…please take them down.”

This draconian policy led to the forced removal of a Christmas tree in the lobby of a Chase Bank branch in Southlake, Texas, this week. This particular tree had been supplied to the bank at no cost to the branch.

The stated purpose of this anti-Christmas policy, again according to internal Chase documents, is that, “We don’t want to lose somebody’s business because of seasonal decorations,” and to “ensure that everyone who visits our branches is made to feel completely welcome and comfortable.” The official “Guidelines on Decorating for the Holidays” from Chase makes no mention of the word Christmas at all.

AFA president Tim Wildmon said, “This is an absurd policy. According to Advertising Age, 91 percent of the American people celebrate Christmas. The most welcoming, inclusive thing you can do this time of year is wish people a merry Christmas.”

Wildmon added, “In fact, Chase’s policy will actually be offensive to many people who bank there. When customers find out that Chase is deliberating disregarding Christmas, they may just be inclined to take their banking business to a Christmas-friendly institution. Christmas is a holiday we’ve set aside as a nation to honor the birth of Christ because of his impact on American and world history. It’s just bad business for any company to show this kind of disregard for our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Randy Sharp, AFA’s director of special projects, added, “Chase is hurting the ability of local branches to nurture a connection with the members of their own communities. If Americans are offended by anything, it’s the disrespect that corporations are showing to Christmas as a holiday. We urge Chase to amend its policy and allow branches to freely celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.”

Source: American Family Association, December 3, 2010

“End-of-Life Consultation” Provision Being Implemented By U.S. Health & Human Services

By Daniel Downs

The LifeTree organization recently reported the U.S. Department of Health was implementing “death panels” measures under then newly passed Obamacare. The infamous Section 1233 of HR 3200 would have federalized voluntary end-of-life consultations, but the section was eventually dropped.

On 29 November, however, the Federal Register (page 73406) published a funding new rule for “voluntary” advance care planning consultations for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

A very enlightening analogy is LifeTree’s equivalence of the new regulation to so-called voluntary TSA pat-downs and full-body scans. It is like a thief asking you for money while pointing a gun at your head.

Some are trouble by the media’s failure to report the new ruling. However, silence of the part of the media is probably due to it similarity to current policy.

When my parent was in hospital, we were asked about living will. We were given information about making plans for emergencies and end-of-lie decisions.

LifeTree researchers are more concerned about the implementation of the other part of the original end-of-life consultation legislation that is already making its ways through Congress. The bill is called the “Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 2009.” It was introduced by Democrats Earl Blaumer (OR) and David Rockefeller (WV) both proponents of assisted suicide. Blaumer is also an advocate of the health care rationing groups and process known as “Physician’s Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment” (POLST).

As explained by Ione Whitlock, POLST is similar to the current document based directive (living will) through which a person’s medical treatment preferences are stated and honored. Under POLST, the document serves the medical process of repetitive questioning by various health care givers. The process is rigged to pressure the patient and/or family toward accepting medical ethics committees’ goals. Those goals advance their policy about advanced illness and conditions as well as reducing inappropriate treatments (often life sustaining treatments).

Recent experience with my parent’s medical care seemed a lot like POLST. The seemingly endless questionnaires by all kinds of nurses, doctors, therapists, and other specialists were numbing. Each new treatment by a different specialist and each new place of care (even in the same hospital) were met with the same series of questions. The same things were asked over and over. What I’m not certain of is whether the goal was get us to accept a predetermined series of treatments–maybe in part. Maybe, it is a conditioning process for greater acceptance of the POLST legislation.

The bioethicists who devised the POLST Paradigm hyped the documents’ use as tools for dignity and autonomy. The documents do leave the door wide open to an “autonomous” decision to hasten death. Yet, POLST owes its existence more to Oregon’s experiment with health care rationing than it does to the state’s assisted suicide experiment, according to Whitlock.

Do you remember how Terri Shiavo’s life was ended by removing her feeding tube? That is the ultimate health care rationing measure under POLST.

The bottom-line is POLST facilitates not only assisted suicide but also imposed death. “It is also an effective cost containment device. It creates an illusion of ‘self-determination’ while fostering consensus ethics. In short, the POLST process rigs the system in favor of pressuring the patient and family [to choose death].”

Americans Still Strongly Favor Audit of the Fed

Looks like the Republicans want the fox watching the henhouse. Ron Paul, one of Congress’ sharpest critics of the Federal Reserve, has been chosen to lead the House subcommittee that monitors the Fed’s activities, and he promises to push again for a full audit of the nation’s central bank.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that Americans remain overwhelmingly in favor of auditing the Fed: 74% of Adults think it’s a good idea, and just 10% are opposed. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

This is consistent with previous surveys and matches support for an audit found in July of last year when Paul’s audit proposal first began gaining attention in the House. Support has risen as high as 80% since then.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke opposes a public audit of the Fed’s monetary policies, but just 29% of Americans hold a favorable opinion of Bernanke. Only 36% of Adults now are at least somewhat confident in those who advise President Obama on economic policy.

Source: Ramussen Reports, December 10, 2010