Heritage Foundation Report: Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

Heritage Foundation Report:

Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

Nicolas Loris, Katie Tubb

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintaining the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was an open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

Veterans Affairs: Soldier Suicide Awareness

Memorial Day meaning and Veterans Affairs:

Soldier Suicide Awareness—

Churches, pastors, civilians needed to ‘ASIST’ in preventing soldier suicides

Teddy James

“Are you thinking about killing yourself?”

The question is startling, shocking, and necessary for many in the armed forces.

The problem is big
“In the world of the military, we are killing ourselves quicker than the enemy is,” Chaplain/Lt. Col. Terry Partin told AFA Journal.

Roughly 22 soldiers take their lives every day, according to the most recent studies released by the Pentagon. That statistic has been true since 2011. In 2014, the latest year a large study was done, the Army’s suicide rate for active-duty soldiers was 25 per 100,000. Compare that to 13 per 100,000 in the civilian world.

Scientists and mental health experts have long studied the issue, but have been unable to explain why this suicide epidemic exists.

“The military may not fully understand why this is happening, but leadership is trying to meet the challenge head on,” Partin said. “I cannot state how much I appreciate the focus on this. They have made it a priority to understand the issues and provide training and help for all soldiers. Beyond that, I have to commend the military chaplains who are engaging so deeply with their troops and doing their best to help them.”

The solution is growing
In the last few years, the Department of Defense has begun using material developed in-house by military personnel and training developed outside the military for chaplains and soldiers interested in helping at-risk soldiers.

One such training, created by Living Works (livingworks.net), is ASIST, Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training.

“ASIST does not seek to make someone a therapist,” Partin said. “It follows an intervention model. Think of it like first aid. If a person trained in first aid approaches a car wreck, he isn’t going to perform surgery or do any intensive medical activity. He will do his best to keep that person alive long enough to get him proper help. That is the same goal of ASIST.”

ASIST is used by soldiers and those involved in the lives of soldiers, but it is applicable and beneficial to anyone desiring to help people around them.

The answer is you
Partin and other leaders of ASIST want to see churches and community leaders go through the training as well.

“I encourage anyone in a position that regularly gives them opportunities to help others to seek out ASIST,” Partin said. “That includes pastors, teachers, anyone who may be called in moments of crisis.”

For pastors specifically, Partin said it is important for them to make a special effort.

“Many soldiers won’t go to their commanding officers with personal issues, especially if those issues include suicidal thoughts. There is still a stigma surrounding that concept in the military. But pastors can open that door simply by having a strong, one-on-one relationship with the soldiers in his church. Open that door, build that bridge, and pray for an opportunity to speak into the lives of the soldiers and soldiers’ families in your congregation.”

For more information about attending an ASIST class, or to set up training at your church, visit livingworks.net.

Trump First 100 Days: America First for Economy; Help Stop Christian Persecution

Trump First 100 Days:

America First for Economy; Help Stop Christian Persecution

Donald Trump Invites Conservative Media to White House for Exclusive Briefing

Charlie Spiering

President Donald Trump met with a group of conservative media reporters, columnists, and radio hosts to discuss his first 100 days as president, speaking about trade issues, foreign policy, and infrastructure spending.

Trump announced that he wanted to levy a 20 percent tax on Canadian soft lumber and suggested he wanted to address milk imports as well.

“It means we’re going to start doing lumber in our country, it’s going to mean that farmers are going to start selling milk in our country,” Trump said.

A senior administration trade official said that the issue was a “long simmering problem” with Canada, accusing them of charging lumber companies low subsidized rates.

“We love Canada, wonderful people, wonderful country, but they have been very good about taking advantage of us through NAFTA,” Trump said.

Trump said that he would explore allowing more logging on federal lands with the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.

“We’re actually having some of those horrific fires because this stuff is sitting there, virgin stuff for so long, and it’s in very bad shape,” he said.

He also discussed the ongoing crisis of persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

“Nobody’s been treated worse, it seems to me, than Christians in the Middle East,” he said, arguing that it was easier for Muslims to come into the United States as refugees than Christians, although it was far more dangerous there for Christians.

“We’re going to be helping the Christians big league,” he said.

Teach your children why Religious Freedom Matters

History Facts: Founding Father James Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine

History Facts:

Founding Father James Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine

James Monroe (/mənˈroʊ/; April 28, 1758 – July 4, 1831) was an American statesman who served from 1817 to 1825 as the fifth President of the United States. Monroe was the last president among the Founding Fathers of the United States as well as the Virginian dynasty; he also represented the end of the Republican Generation in that office.[1] Born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, Monroe was of the planter class and fought in the American Revolutionary War. He was wounded in the Battle of Trenton with a musket ball to his shoulder. After studying law under Thomas Jefferson from 1780 to 1783, he served as a delegate in the Continental Congress.

As an anti-federalist delegate to the Virginia convention that considered ratification of the United States Constitution, Monroe opposed ratification, claiming it gave too much power to the central government. He took an active part in the new government, and in 1790 he was elected to the Senate of the first United States Congress, where he joined the Democratic-Republicans. He gained experience as an executive as the Governor of Virginia and rose to national prominence as a diplomat in France, when he helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. During the War of 1812, Monroe served in critical roles as Secretary of State and the Secretary of War under President James Madison.[2]

Facing little opposition from the fractured Federalist Party, Monroe was easily elected president in 1816, winning over 80 percent of the electoral vote and becoming the last president during the First Party System era of American politics. As president, he sought to ease partisan tensions, embarking on a tour of the country that was well received. With the ratification of the Treaty of 1818, under the successful diplomacy of his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the United States extended its reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by acquiring harbor and fishing rights in the Pacific Northwest; the United States and Britain jointly occupied the Oregon Country. In addition to the acquisition of Florida, the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty secured the border of the United States along the 42nd Parallel to the Pacific Ocean and represented America’s first determined attempt at creating an “American global empire”.[3] As nationalism surged, partisan fury subsided, and the “Era of Good Feelings” ensued, until the Panic of 1819 struck, and a dispute over the admission of Missouri embroiled the country in 1820. Nonetheless, Monroe won near-unanimous reelection.

Monroe supported the founding of colonies in Africa for freed slaves that would eventually form the nation of Liberia, whose capital, Monrovia, is named in his honor. In 1823, he announced the United States’ opposition to any European intervention in the recently independent countries of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine, which became a landmark in American foreign policy. His presidency concluded the first period of American presidential history before the beginning of Jacksonian democracy and the Second Party System era. Following his retirement in 1825, Monroe was plagued by financial difficulties. He died in New York City on July 4, 1831. He has been ranked in the aggregate by scholars as the 16th most successful president.

Revolutionary War service

Monroe wounded in battle of Trenton, Revolutionary War, and cited for bravery

In early 1776, about a year and a half after his enrollment, Monroe dropped out of college and joined the 3rd Virginia Regiment in the Continental Army.[8] As the fledgling army valued literacy in its officers, Monroe was commissioned with the rank of lieutenant, serving under Captain William Washington. After months of training, Monroe and seven hundred Virginia infantrymen were called north to serve in the New York and New Jersey campaign. Shortly after the Virginians arrived, Washington led the army in a retreat from New York City into New Jersey and then across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. In December, Monroe took part in a surprise attack on a Hessian encampment. Though the attack was successful, Monroe suffered a severed artery in the battle and nearly died. In the aftermath of the battle, Washington cited Monroe and Washington for their bravery, and promoted Monroe to the rank of captain. After his wounds healed, Monroe returned to Virginia to recruit his own company of soldiers.[9] Monroe’s participation in the battle was memorialized in John Trumbull‘s painting, The Capture of the Hessians at Trenton, December 26, 1776, as well as Emanuel Leutze‘s Washington Crossing the Delaware.[10]

Monroe Doctrine

After the Napoleonic wars (which ended in 1815), almost all of Spain’s and Portugal’s colonies in Latin America revolted and declared independence. Americans welcomed this development as a validation of the spirit of Republicanism. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams suggested delaying formal recognition until Florida was secured. The problem of imperial invasion was intensified by a Russian claim to the Pacific coast down to the fifty-first parallel and simultaneous European pressure to have all of Latin America returned to its colonial status.[citation needed]

Monroe informed Congress in March 1822 that permanent stable governments had been established in the United Provinces of the River Plate (the core of present-day Argentina), Colombia, Chile, and Mexico. Adams, under Monroe’s supervision, wrote the instructions for the ministers (ambassadors) to these new countries. They declared that the policy of the United States was to uphold republican institutions and to seek treaties of commerce on a most-favored-nation basis. The United States would support inter-American congresses dedicated to the development of economic and political institutions fundamentally differing from those prevailing in Europe. The articulation of an “American system” distinct from that of Europe was a basic tenet of Monroe’s policy toward Latin America. Monroe took pride as the United States was the first nation to extend recognition and to set an example to the rest of the world for its support of the “cause of liberty and humanity”.[citation needed]

Monroe formally announced in his message to Congress on December 2, 1823, what was later called the Monroe Doctrine. He proclaimed that the Americas should be free from future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries’ affairs. It further stated the United States’ intention to stay neutral in wars amongst European powers and their colonies, but to consider new colonies or interference with independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the United States.[b]

Although it is Monroe’s most famous contribution to history, the speech was written by Adams, who designed the doctrine in cooperation with Britain.[79] Monroe and Adams realized that American recognition would not protect the new countries against military intervention to restore Spain’s power. In October 1823, Richard Rush, the American minister in London, advised that Foreign Secretary George Canning was proposing that the U.S. and Britain jointly declare their opposition to European intervention. Britain, with its powerful navy, also opposed re-conquest of Latin America and suggested that the United States join in proclaiming a “hands off” policy. Galvanized by the British initiative, Monroe consulted with American leaders and then formulated a plan with Adams. Ex-Presidents Jefferson and Madison counseled Monroe to accept the offer, but Adams advised, “It would be more candid … to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cock-boat in the wake of the British man-of-war.” Monroe accepted Adams’ advice. Not only must Latin America be left alone, he warned, but also Russia must not encroach southward on the Pacific coast. “the American continents,” he stated, “by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power.”[citation needed]

The Monroe Doctrine at the time of its adoption thus pertained more to the Russians in North America than to the former Spanish colonies. The result was a system of American isolationism under the sponsorship of the British navy. The Monroe Doctrine held that the United States considered the Western Hemisphere as no longer a place for European colonization; that any future effort to gain further political control in the hemisphere or to violate the independence of existing states would be treated as an act of hostility; and finally that there existed two different and incompatible political systems in the world. The United States, therefore, promised to refrain from intervention in European affairs and demanded Europe to abstain from interfering with American matters. There were few serious European attempts at intervention.[

More about James Monroe

 

Hillsdale Imprimis: National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts

Hillsdale Imprimis: 

National Security and Intelligence Agencies Facts

How Intelligence Works (When it Does)

Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press

Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.

Why Today’s Agencies are Not Trusted

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet.

And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest.

Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

Coats, Pompeo Careers Built on Substance

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.

Intelligence Collectors Need Guidance on What to Look For

This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.

Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.

Think

Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.

Reagan’s Intelligence Analysts

This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because ev­eryone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.

Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.

 

Read Full Article Here

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/how-intelligence-works-when-it-does/

Moral Support: Religious Freedom supported, Defund Planned Parenthood, Trump Immigration Policy, Economic policy vindicated

Moral Support:

Religious Freedom supported, Defund Planned Parenthood, Trump Immigration Policy, Economic policy vindicated

Dogs bark, but the wagons roll on. ~Louis L’Amour

 

Religious Freedom and Traditional Family; Defund Planned Parenthood

VP Pence Breaks Senate Tie over Planned Parenthood State Funding Mandate

by Dr. Susan Berry

Justice Dept. Drops Pro-Transgender Lawsuit

by Neil Munro

Good Friday: Trump Appoints Religious Liberty Defender to Head HHS Office for Civil Rights

by Dr. Susan Berry

Feds Promise to Protect Half a Million American Girls from Genital Mutilation

The Department of Justice is committed to stopping female genital mutilation in this country, and will use the full power of the law to ensure that no girls suffer such physical and emotional abuse,” the acting Assistant Attorney General of the justice department’s criminal division, Kenneth Blanco, said April 13.

POTUS Signs Repeal of Obama Planned Parenthood State Funding Mandate

Ancestry.com helps family of dead boy find man posing as him

 

Trump Immigration Policy Vindicated

Lansing, Michigan, Will No Longer Declare Itself a ‘Sanctuary City’

by Katherine Rodriguez

Most Americans, especially minorities, say no to sanctuary cities

Poll: Only 1 in 3 wants own community to protect illegals

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/most-americans-especially-minorities-say-no-to-sanctuary-cities/

Ann Corcoran: Trump Effect: More Central American migrants want asylum in Mexico, not moving on to US

And, that is how asylum is supposed to work.

Anyone who meets the legal definition of a refugee*** is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach—

National Security

 

Donald Trump and Israel PM Netanyahu

Bibi Welcomes New U.S. Amb. — ‘to Jerusalem’

 

Foreign Policy: Trump Has a Strategy for Destroying Islamic State – and It’s Working

 

Trump Economic Policy, Drain the Swamp

Trump Admin Releases ‘Drain the Swamp’ Guidance

Ben Garrison

Trump Halts U.S. Funding of UN Population Fund

Trade Deficit Falls by 10% as U.S. Factories Benefit from Economic Stability

Shock Berkeley Poll: California Voters Want DemS to Work with Trump

EPA Chief Pruitt Calls for ‘Exit’ from Paris Climate Agreement

 

Heritage Foundation Report: President Trump and Syria Attack

Heritage Foundation Report:

President Trump and Syria Attack

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

 

Trump’s powerful message to the world.

The focused and punitive strike in Syria last week sent a powerful message to the world that Bashar Assad’s behavior was unacceptable. It’s clear there is now a decisive leader in the White House. But this message alone is not a solution to the Syrian civil war. Russia and Iran must stop enabling Assad’s brutality. The main focus of U.S. operations must remain the defeat of ISIS and helping Iraq stabilize and secure its borders.

James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at Heritage, says the Trump administration “should remain focused on the key problem at hand—Assad’s chemical weapons threat—and not seek to expand the military mission to include regime change. That kind of mission creep would bog down U.S. military forces in Syria for years, fighting not only the Assad regime, but Hezbollah, Iran, and possibly Russia. Regime change is a bridge too far.” Read more from Phillips on the recent strike and his report on how to improve U.S.-Syria policy.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World

Critical Thinking: Defining Church and State

Critical Thinking:

Defining Church and State

C.A. Davidson

    TODAY IN OUR SOCIETY, WE HAVE PEOPLE LITERALLY GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, because many of us do not understand the line of demarcation between church and state.

Let’s take a closer look at our topic in the First Amendment of the Constitution:

church-state3-first-amendmtCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …

I hope by the time we conclude here that you will understand more precisely what “establishment of religion” means. In 1963, the Supreme Court established the religion of atheism by banning the Bible. Congress didn’t even make that law—the Supreme Court did. How unconstitutional is that?

Today, Congress has not made laws establishing a religion, in this case Islam. Political Correctness, with the help of Barack Obama, has done that. How unconstitutional is that?

Only Congress can make laws. Congressman Trey Gowdy explains:

We make law and while you are free to stand and clap when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to do it with or without you. I will never stand and clap when ANY president no matter whether it’s your president or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an afterthought. WE MAKE LAW. 

Church Laws

Most Christian church laws deal with the moral standing of an individual. They can exile or excommunicate a member of their faith for moral transgression, which is violation of a moral law.

U.S. Laws

church-state2-madison-quote          U.S . laws are based on the biblical Ten Commandments. The Constitution guarantees protection of innocent life and property. Therefore, if a member of any religion in the United States steals or commits murder, that member must be tried and punishable by a civil court, because the person has infringed upon another’s liberties and is a threat to society. Most holy writ condemns murder. The religious books of some countries justify murder in the name of their religion. Murder is still against the law in the United States, and is not justified or protected by freedom of religion.

Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the individual states provide for equality among all religions, in order to encourage a moral fiber in society.

Before the Civil War, some states were persecuting certain religions and favoring others, even though the First Amendment of the Constitution spells out the right to freedom for all religions. After the Civil War, amendments were established so that the states could not overrule the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Now, First Amendment rights are guaranteed on a national level to all American citizens, no matter what state they reside in.

Dallin H. Oaks, legal scholar and Christian leader, clarifies:

Jefferson’s “wall” was obviously intended only for the federal government, and the Supreme Court application of the metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism. (Dallin Oaks, 1963: The Wall Between Church and State, pp.2-3)

church-state1-reagan-quote          Under the United States Constitution,  we have freedom of religion, and anyone can worship whom, where, or what they choose, or not worship anything, if they so choose—as long as their religious opinions don’t cause them to infringe upon the liberties of others. The Constitution is the charter for a civil government, not a religious government, but it requires that the government protect our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property.

Sharia Law, on the other hand, is administered by the Islamic State, in which religion and state are inseparable. Sharia Law is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and property, and denies First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and press as well. Sharia Law allows killing, stealing, and enslavement in the name of their man-made religion.

Should Church Doctrine determine National Policy?

Christians believe in being kind to the wayfaring stranger. The motives are pure, Christ-like love. Does this mean that governments should apply this doctrine on a national scale, and dispense with the vetting process for immigrants?

ImmigrationInvasionOfAmericaThe motives of Islamists, on the other hand, are to use immigration as an invasion tactic, to conquer the target nation, with no intention of assimilating into our Judeo-Christian culture and respecting our values. Obviously, for national security reasons, America can’t assume that the motives of all immigrants are pure, especially when those immigrants hold to religious doctrines that are inimical to the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our nation is founded.

(See Constitution OK with Immigration Tests on Religion

Ed Vitagliano, of the American Family Association, provides some important insights into this issue:

welfare-government-charity-madisonHere is the principle: Biblically speaking, the government is not the same as the individual Christian, and it is not the same as the church. Therefore, believers must be careful not to apply to government Scriptures intended for the church.

For example, Jesus said, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matthew 6:14).

So, we must conclude that individual Christians are to forgive their enemies. But must we also conclude that governments should forgive their enemies? Must we demand that criminals convicted of crimes be released and not sent to prison?

The application of this principle is that individual Christians should help refugees who are in our nation. But the issue of who we allow in – and how many – is not a biblical matter. It is a political matter. (Please see this related post for additional important information:

Culture Wars: Church and State Issues and Illegal Immigration

 

            You decide: The line of demarcation between Church and State     

Here are some other examples. Use critical thinking to determine whether these cases deserve the protection  of freedom of religion, or whether they violate unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property,  threatening public safety, thereby being subject to prosecution and punishment by civil law.

Child Sacrifice

moloch_the_god1) In ancient times, some people worshipped a god named Moloch. These worshippers practiced human sacrifice, throwing their babies into a fiery furnace in the belly of the statue of  Moloch.

  • Should those worshipers have been granted license to destroy innocent life because it was a religious ritual for them?

Slavery and Slave Trade

2) In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.

If Muslims rather than Christians had been running things in countries like the U.S., the Islamic State argues in the most recent issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, “the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy.”

As usual, the Islamic State supports its position with theological arguments, suggesting that Allah is pleased with slavery, as long as the slaves are infidels.

slave-trade-ISIS“Trading in black African slaves, the [Islamic] magazine notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

(Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ Breitbart.com)

  • Should Islamists be allowed to traffic in slavery and protected by freedom of religion because they do it for “religious reasons?”

Murder

3) Jihad is not a product of extremist fringes; it is a core religious doctrine of Islam today found in their Koran. Jihad requires that Islamists kill or enslave innocent people—anyone who does not convert to their religion.

MuslimWarriorTrading in black African slaves, the magazine [Dabiq] notes, would not be done for racial reasons but religious ones.

“All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter his enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them.”[1]

  • Should Islamists be protected by freedom of religion so they can “slaughter [his] enemies”, or anyone who doesn’t agree with Islam?

Critical Thinking  

  • When is freedom of religion limited?
  • What actions, even if done in the name of religion, require the perpetrator to be subject to civil law?

Related Post:

 Islamic State approves Slave Trade

 

[1]  Thomas D. Williams, PhD. ‘Lucrative African Slave Trade Would Have Continued’ (Breitbart.com)

 

National Security: Christianity, Church and State Issues

National Security:

Christianity, Church and State Issues

Does Christian compassion conflict with national security?

Remember, the role of the state is to protect the citizens from terrorism by enforcing the law, so that the citizens, including Christians, can have freedom of religion to “welcome the strangerwho has been vetted and is truly in need. First Amendment rights apply to citizens only. Acts of murder, theft, and fraud are not protected by freedom of religion, but are subject to civil law. ~C.D.

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. ~Doctrine and Covenants 58:21

‘Welcoming the stranger’ in an age of civilizational jihad and terror

Art Moore

Does the biblical mandate to “welcome the stranger” mean that faithful Christians must support immigration policies that arguably could not only harm citizens, but also threaten the nation’s very existence?

When more than half of U.S. governors announced they wouldn’t take in any more Syrian migrants until their security concerns were addressed, President Obama responded with a moral rebuke, declaring, “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values,” and is “not who we are” as Americans. (Obama’s values are not American values. ~C.D.)

Church and State Defined

State Responsibility: VET incoming migrants; then, Christians can welcome those who are truly fleeing oppression

But David French, an evangelical Christian known for his National Review columns and books on Islam and terrorism, argued there is “no contradiction between personally welcoming the ‘strangers’ among us while our leaders endeavor to protect us from a genocidal terrorist force that uses refugee status as a shield and disguise to perpetrate brutal attacks against innocent civilians.”

 

Abandoning Morality

Edward J. Erler, professor emeritus of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, observed a moral trend that has muddled the debate over the Syrian migrants, leading to what he believes are irrational decisions regarding national security.

 

Moral Relativism of Diversity

In a speech at Hillsdale College last fall he said Americans “have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.'”

Erler said progressivism has eroded that foundation, leading to a morality of value-free relativism that insists reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, leaving society only with “idiosyncratic preferences.”

“In this value-free universe, the only value that is ‘objectively’ of higher rank is tolerance. Equal toleration of all values—what is called today a commitment to diversity—is only ‘reasonable’ position,” he explained.

He noted that the “tolerance of those who are willing to tolerate you does not earn you much credit—it doesn’t require much of a commitment or sacrifice.”

This reality, according to Erler, helps explain why many Westerners, including religious believers, are so eager to take in the Muslim migrants while demonizing those who disagree with them.

“If, however, you are willing to tolerate those who are pledged to kill you and destroy your way of life, tolerance represents a genuine commitment,” Erler said. “Only such a deadly commitment signals a nation’s single-minded devotion to tolerance as the highest value by its willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty as proof of its commitment.”

Concluding his argument, he said the “common-sense citizen is forgiven for thinking this train of thought insane.”

“But what other explanation could there be for the insistence of so many of our political leaders on risking the nation’s security—in light of what we see in Europe, one might even say their willingness to commit national suicide—by admitting refugees without regard to their hostility to our way of life and their wish to destroy us as a nation?”

Erler noted that Western leaders have shown no such enthusiasm for rescuing Christian refugees from Middle Eastern violence.

“These refugees, of course, represent no danger to America. Only by admitting those who do represent a danger can we display to the world ‘who we are as a people,’ a people willing to sacrifice ourselves to vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance.”

Welfare Refugees

Daniel Greenfield, an Israel-born author in New York who focuses on radical Islam, argued the only authentic refugees are Christians and Yazidis who do not have a country to call their own in the region.  Sunnis Muslims can flee to Jordan or Turkey, and Shiite Muslims can take refuge in Lebanon.

“Talk of resettling them in the United States or Europe has nothing to do with ‘persecution,'” he wrote in a column for FrontPage Magazine.

“It’s economic migration. And economic migration in this case is a euphemism for welfare migration,” noting the refugees specifically seek out countries such as Germany and Sweden with generous welfare states.

Resisting Assimilation

But the national-security threat is not limited to keeping out Islamic terrorists.

Counter-terrorism expert Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted the “blind sheik” terror case, points out the threat posed by populations that develop, encourage, aid, abet and materially support terrorism.

Shariah conflicts with the Constitution

But even more significant for the long term well-being of the United States, is the civilizational threat posed by the resistance to assimilation and the promotion of a system of governance—Islamic law, or shariah—that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

McCarthy warned in a National Review column that highly influential Islamic leaders have embarked on a conquest strategy known as “voluntary apartheid,” meaning the establishment of shariah enclaves that would eventually merge into an Islamic state that dominates Europe and the United States.

No-Go Zones

McCarthy noted France’s problem with its unassimilated Muslim community, asking, “Why should we voluntarily replicate it here?”

He quoted the highly respected political scientist Giles Kepel, who found dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

These “no-go zones” include the Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis, which harbored the terrorist cell that carried out the multi-pronged November 2015 attack in the French capital that killed 129 people. Of the 1.4 million who live there, 600,000 are Muslims.

Dr. Ben Carson believes creating safe zones in Syria is a better way to deal with Syrian refugees than resettling them in the United States.

Christians Ignored

While 10 percent of the Syrian population is Christian, only 56 of the 10,801 Syrians accpet to the U.S. as of last September were Christians—about one-half of 1 percent.

A Christian leader who has been kidnapped by jihadists, and who has an ISIS bounty on his head, spoke with Whistleblower about the challenge of answering the seemingly conflicting calls of welcoming the stranger and also caring for love ones and neighbors.

The England-born vicar of Baghdad, Canon Andrew White, who now is in exile from his Baghdad congregation, has been caring for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have fled ISIS.

More than 1,200 people who once worshipped with him have been killed in recent years, including four boys who were beheaded because they refused to convert to Islam.

“I think our first priority as Christians is to care for our family: We have to care for the Christians,” he said. “and what America is very bad at doing is understanding the needs of persecuted Christians.”

Gallery

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts, Part 2

This gallery contains 3 photos.

National Security: Islamic Invasion, Immigration Vetting Process, and Immigration Facts Islamic Refugees, Rigorous Vetting and the Facts: Part 2 Mark Landsbaum   Remember, the role of the state is to protect the citizens from terrorism by enforcing the law, so … Continue reading