Category Archives: Commentary

Cal Thomas says PURISTS WANTed PURITY on healthcare, so they got nothing

THE PROBLEM WITH REFORMING THE TAX CODE IS THE SAME PROBLEM THAT CONFRONTED REPEALING OBAMACARE. PURISTS WANT PURITY AND BY SEEKING IT THEY ARE LIKELY TO GET NOTHING.

THE LATE SENATOR TED KENNEDY UNDERSTOOD THIS. WHEN HIS PARTY WAS IN THE MINORITY KENNEDY WORKED WITH REPUBLICANS TO GET WHAT HE COULD, ALWAYS KEEPING HIS ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE IN MIND.

IT IS NOT COMPROMISING YOUR PRINCIPLES TO COMPROMISE ON LEGISLATION THAT GETS YOU CLOSER TO YOUR GOAL. IF YOUR ATTITUDE IS “ALL OR NOTHING” YOU ARE LIKELY TO GET NOTHING.
( Billy’s thoughts Amen Cal. Read the whole commentary by Thomas here , or listen to the audio. )

GOP only have themselves to blame ( voters should recall their broken promise on Election Day )

Over seven years ago, Democrats in Congress joined President Obama to create a massive expansion of Washington’s role in our health care system. And in the time since then, we’ve witnessed the many ways in which Obamacare has hurt the American health system.
Republicans in the United States Senate had the opportunity this week to repeal large parts of that law and to set health policy in America on a different course. The GOP legislation wasn’t perfect, but was certainly an improvement on the status quo. It was also the best chance Republicansand  have ever had to substantially repeal and replace Obamacare.
( obamacare-enshrined )

I went to a hate group meeting

I spent last week with a hate group. How ‘bout you? For the Colson Center, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

Last week, ABC and NBC copied and pasted a label from the Southern Poverty Law Center and ran it as a headline on their website. “Jeff Sessions Addresses anti-LGBT Hate Group.” The group they were referring to wasn’t the Klan or doesn’t have any history of violence. It was the Alliance Defending Freedom, a premier legal organization defending religious liberty. In fact, ADF just won their seventh case in seven years at the Supreme Court!

Look, it doesn’t surprise me at all that the SPLC, a group that has far strayed from its roots, adopted a wholesale liberal agenda, and incited violence against conservative organizations, would call ADF “a hate group.” That just demonstrates how much of an extremist organization they really are.

But for the major media outlets like ABC and NBC to use that terminology for a respected legal organization, even if they did put the words in scare quotes, is simply slander. And they should apologize.

Sadly Guidestar has an agenda it looks like

One place where donors often go to check out a charity is GuideStar. Although it has been described as a “neutral” aggregator of tax data on charities, its latest actions call that designation into question. It originally placed “hate group” labels on certain groups so designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Southern Poverty Law Center at one time was respected for their work. But it has chosen to label many Christian and other conservative groups as hate groups merely because they hold to traditional family values and are critical of the LGBT agenda. Some of the groups include the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. But it also includes such groups as the American College of Pediatricians and the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

( Read the rest of this commentary, or listen to it by going here. )

God decides not the parents, or the child

There are many stories these days of government trampling parental rights, but what happens when parents are the ones doing the trampling?

Recently on BreakPoint we talked about the tough case of Charlie Gard—the terminally ill baby whom British courts decided should die in the hospital rather than travel to America with his parents to seek experimental treatment for his rare condition. In that commentary, I said that the government had overstepped its authority, taking away the right of Charlie’s parents to make decisions for their son.

But another story shows that there’s another side to this coin. The parent of a Canadian newborn not only wants to make a crucial life decision for him or her, but also force the government to recognize that decision. Now I say “him or her” because it has been hidden whether little Searyl Doty of British Columbia is a boy or a girl. Only the child’s mother, who identifies as a “non-binary trans person” and is taking male hormones, knows the truth.

Searyl made international news when this baby received what his or her mother is calling the first ever “genderless” document issued by any government. The Gender Free I.D. Coalition, an activist group Searyl’s mother participates in, seeks to “remove all gender/sex designations from identity documents,” and in this case, they appear to have gotten their wish. The card issued by British Columbia lists Searyl’s sex as “U,” presumably for “unknown” or “unclassified.”

Searyl’s mother (who, again, would prefer I call her a “parent,”) said in a statement that “It is up to Searyl to decide how they identify, when they are old enough to develop their own gender identity.”

Doty believes so deeply in liberating children from biological sex that she’s a complainant in a case currently before the province’s Human Rights Tribunal, arguing for genderless government I.D. She’s also applied for judicial review of her child’s birth certificate, which British Columbia still says must list either male or female.

Doty’s lawyer says requiring such a designation violates the baby’s rights “as a Canadian citizen to life, liberty and security of the person.” And by the way—folks, I promise I’m not making this up—this lawyer refuses to use capital letters in her name because it’s oppressive.

Now why am I telling you all of this? Because in contrast to the Charlie Gard case in which the government overstepped its sphere of sovereignty, this is a case of a parent overstepping her sphere of sovereignty as well as crossing the line into abuse.

And no, I don’t think “abuse” is too strong a word for a mother who refuses to acknowledge the biological reality of her child’s sex, and to raise him or her in denial of such reality. The potential for harm here is great, and not only should government officials refuse to accommodate it, they should stop such practices, even if necessary, removing the child from that home.

Of course, I don’t expect for a moment the Canadian authorities will actually do this. But they should. And Christians shouldn’t be afraid to say so.

And just as there are limits to the state’s authority over the family, there are limits of the family’s authority over the state. A parent doesn’t have the right to force the government to violate its responsibility to recognize reality either.

God designed the family before all other institutions to produce, nurture, and protect children. The state isn’t competent to do this, and neither is the market, the academy, or even the church. But when the family fails to fulfill its God-ordained role—when parents try to deny a fundamental and biological truth about who their children are, they’ve failed.

It’s awful to watch governments steamroll one family to end Charlie Gard’s life, while failing to intervene in Searyl Doty’s life. Because children are helpless against our social experimentations, Christians can’t simply retreat from the public square or concede the clash of worldviews. The bad ideas of adults in any sphere of authority often have small victims.

Star player says yes to God and rejects the world, along with rainbow flag

The pressure on Christians to wave the rainbow flag may be new, but the issue is as old as the church.

Imagine for the moment that you’re a world-class soccer star. You’ve worked for this all your life. Day after day and year after year you get up early, run, work on drills to hone your God-given talent. You’ve sacrificed many other things to rank among the best in the world. And now you may have to choose between your career or your faith. Why? Because you refuse to sell out to the crowd.

This is not make-believe. This is the plight of Jaelene Hinkle, a Christian athlete with the U.S. national soccer team. Jaelene, you see, has suddenly been thrust into a harsh spotlight—not for anything she’s done on the pitch, as they say, but for her decision not to play in games in which her team must wear rainbow jerseys in support of “LGBT Pride” month in June.

Now, Jaelene is not trying to make waves but simply says she’s bowing out for “personal reasons.”

But her views on the matter are pretty clear. When the Supreme Court legalized what is called “same-sex marriage” in 2015, Jaelene stated on Instagram, “I believe with every fiber in my body that what was written 2,000 years ago in the Bible is undoubtedly true …. This world may change, but Christ and His Word NEVER will.”

After calling on Christians to become more loving, she added, “The rainbow was a [covenant] made between God and all his creation that never again would the world be flooded as it was when He destroyed the world during Noah’s time. It’s a constant reminder that no matter how corrupt this world becomes, He will never leave us or forsake us.”

Good, strong words! The rainbow, in case you haven’t noticed, has been appropriated by the LGBT rights crowd.

The response to Jaelene’s latest stand has been mostly vitriol. One of the few printable reactions in opposition was, “It’s so nice when the trash takes itself out.”

To this point however, Jaelene’s decision hasn’t cost her a spot on the national team. And one fair-minded gay sports blog said, “Hinkle has a right to her personal beliefs and if that means skipping a chance to play, that is also her right.”

It’s been clear for a while now that sport, like many other realms in our culture, is under siege from the forces of political correctness, sexual license, and marriage redefinition. A few years ago, the NFL threatened to take the Super Bowl away from the state of Arizona because of a religious freedom bill that the LGBT activists opposed—so Arizona’s governor vetoed the bill. North Carolina was threatened by the NCAA with economic blackmail over its so-called “bathroom bill”—and changed the law. And now the Seattle WNBA team is donating a portion of ticket sales to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. I wonder what any Christians on the team think of this.

But it isn’t just about sports. The pressure to conform is being ratcheted up everywhere—in business, politics, even religion. On a recent episode of “The Point,” my colleague John Stonestreet bemoaned that the LGBT “rainbows” have even turned up everywhere—even on bags of French fries! And I can sympathize.

Yet all this isn’t really a surprise, is it? Christians have always faced a choice between following God or the world, Christ or Caesar. In the early church, Christians such as Polycarp, who was bishop of the church in Smyrna, also had to choose. Polycarp, who was an old man, simply had to say “Caesar is lord” and offer a pinch of incense before Caesar’s image—or face torture and death. He refused to give in, saying, “Eighty-six years I have served Christ, and He never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”

The pressure to go along with the world on human sexuality is probably only going to intensify. For the sake of God’s honor, the truth of His Word, and our neighbors’ flourishing, we simply cannot wave the rainbow flag. Thank God, Jaelene Hinkle hasn’t.

Deism and America’s Founders

Read some commentaries on the men who were used to put America together,here or listen to the audit of them.

Paying for death ( why are we funding this group, I asked you again )

Audio

Who should be in charge of your kid’s care ? You, or the government ? In the UK, it is the government who is heartless by wanting little Charlie to die !

Can the government tell you when and where your child will die? For one couple in the U.K., the answer is “yes.” This is a chilling precedent.

 

An incredibly complicated and heartbreaking life-and-death medical case has sparked an international debate: It’s the case of little Charlie Gard.

Charlie suffers from an extremely rare and deadly genetic disorder called Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome. Mitochondria “are structures within cells that convert the energy from food into a form that cells can use.” Because of his depletion of mitochondrial DNA, Charlie’s muscles and organs are failing. He’s unconscious and cannot breathe on his own. From all reports, he’s in the terminal stages of a disease for which there is no known cure.

Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, have raised a million and a half dollars in private donations to take him to America for an experimental treatment. They appear under no illusion that the treatment will work, but they do want to exhaust every possibility.

But doctors at Britain’s Great Ormond Street Hospital have decided that Charlie’s condition is hopeless, and that he should be left to die. Britain’s High Court agreed, and the European Court of Human rights refused to intervene after Charlie’s parents appealed. The doctors now have the legal go-ahead to take Charlie off life support.

Now world reaction has been decidedly on the side of Charlie’s parents. After some initial confusion within the Vatican, the Vatican’s pediatric hospital offered to take care of Charlie, as has at least one American hospital. Even President Trump tweeted over the weekend, “If we can help little #CharlieGard, … we would be delighted to do so.”

As I record this broadcast, these offers have all fallen on deaf ears. The hospital refuses to let Charlie travel or even die at home with his parents. They’ve kept him on life support to give Charlie and his parents just a little more time together.

Those are the facts as I understand them. But now here’s why this case is so important, both for the sake of Charlie and his family, and for our civilization.

First, the government should have no role in dictating when and where a baby should die, and whether his parents can seek additional treatment options. The decision by the British High Court is an appalling overreach, and it sets a very dangerous precedent. In worldview terms, the government is well beyond its sphere of sovereignty, gobbling up authority that rightfully belongs to the family and to the church.

Second Peter clarifies that the civil authorities are ordained by God to reward good and punish evil. Great Ormond Street Hospital and the British and international courts have determined it’s time for little Charlie to die, regardless of how many people around the world want to help him by paying for transportation and additional treatment. They won’t even allow him to die at home. They’ve effectively asserted ownership over this little boy and his life. This is unambiguously wrong.

And the facts don’t support the European Court of Human Rights’ claim that undergoing experimental treatment would expose Charlie to “continued pain, suffering and distress.” As one official at the hospital where he’s being cared for admitted, doctors “don’t know whether he suffers pain.”

And, we should note, the British government is in this position of superseded authority largely because of the breakdown of the family. Courts and officials there are accustomed to playing mom, dad, even sometimes God. And we’re not that far behind here in the United States.

But that doesn’t mean the government has the right to make the kinds of life-and-death decisions that Charlie’s parents and others are called to make, nor is it best equipped to navigate the unique challenges of such a difficult case. When it comes to this little life, by overstepping, hospital officials and judges have handed down a death sentence that isn’t theirs to render.

BAPTISM

( Audio )

Listen to a commentary on this important subject. What is BAPTISM, and what is it not.