Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 22, 2017, 06:00:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Jesus Christ loves you.
276532 Posts in 26174 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:15:53 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post Digest 3-16-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

In August 2012, during the height of the pivotal election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid erroneously charged, “The word’s out that [Romney] hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years.” It was a blatant lie that even The Washington Post flatly condemned13. Even in the ensuing years Reid remained stubborn14, haughtily saying things like, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” and, “It’s one of the best things I’ve ever done.”

Then there’s Hillary Clinton. At a presidential debate last fall, she stated, “You’ve gotta ask yourself, why won’t [Trump] release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. … Maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes.” Of course, we now know that Trump’s 2005 tax rate of 25%15 dwarfed that of Obama and, yes, even Bernie Sanders. Especially Bernie Sanders, whose income was taxed at just 13% in 2014. And as for Clinton, at least half the reason for the Clinton Foundation’s existence was to provide a tax shelter for Bill and Hillary’s exorbitant speaking fee income.

Republicans are constantly bombarded with accusations of tax evasion and exploitation, but the fact is that the real tax deception is coming from the Left, whose continued gamesmanship with faux accusations is hurting them mightily at the ballot box.

Top Headlines16

    Trump budget: $1.5 billion for border wall, 28% slash to State Department. (The Daily Signal17)

    Feds hit debt limit — again; Debt now exceeds limit set in 2008 by $8,550,505,000,000. (CNS News18.)

    EPA confirms it will reopen review of 2025 fuel rules. (Reuters19)

    Ryan: Health care plan must change to pass the House. (The Washington Post20)

    U.S. indicts Russian FSB agents in Yahoo hack targeting journalists, government officials. (The Washington Times21)

    Dan Coats confirmed as director of national intelligence. (USA Today22)

    Admiral, seven other Navy officers charged with corruption in new “Fat Leonard” indictment. (The Washington Post23)

    Fed raises benchmark rate as inflation approaches 2% target. (Bloomberg24)

    U.S. military likely to send as many as 1,000 more ground troops into Syria ahead of Raqqa offensive, officials say. (The Washington Post25)

    Students from immigrant households in U.S. public schools doubles since 1990. (The Washington Times26)

    Policy: Winners and losers under Trump’s budget plan. (Washington Examiner27)

    Policy: Slow down and fix the GOP health care bill. (National Review28.)

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report29.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read Are Sanctuary Cities Safer?30. The “sanctuary city” movement is nothing more than a pandering political charade aimed at Hispanic voters — and sanctimonious fellow leftist elites.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here31.


    An Increasingly Dangerous North Korea32 — Trump can thank Obama, Clinton and Carter for the trouble.
    New Climate Study Vindicates EPA’s Pruitt33 — CO2 may not be as culpable as alarmists claim.
    Obama’s Meddling Ways?34 — Republicans call for investigation of whether he tried to influence foreign elections.
    Time to Say Goodbye to Michelle Obama’s School Lunches35 — Kids will eat if the food’s good.


    Jeff Jacoby: Climate Models Fail So Often Because Climate Science Is So Incomplete36
    Veronique de Rugy: 3 Actions for Combatting Government Favoritism37
    Hans von Spakovsky: Preet Bharara ‘Fired’: A Phony Scandal Created by an Obama Appointee38

For more, visit Right Opinion39.


Jeff Jacoby: “Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½. Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists' frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism. The list of variables that shape climate is very long. … But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50. (Multiplying .95 by itself 15 times yields 46.3 percent.) Is it any surprise that climate-change predictions in the real world — where the complexities are exponentially greater and the exactitude of knowledge much less — have such a poor track record?”


Insight: “A good writer of history is a guy who is suspicious. Suspicion marks the real difference between the man who wants to write honest history and the one who’d rather write a good story.” —Jim Bishop (1907-1987)

About that “vast right-wing conspiracy”: “President Trump’s assertion that his phones at Trump Tower were tapped last year has been treated as hilarious — and in some circles as beyond contempt. But I can vouch for the fact that extracurricular surveillance does occur, regardless of whether it is officially approved. I was wiretapped in 2011 after taking a phone call in my congressional office from a foreign leader.” —former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich

A futile effort: “I think there’s a difference between not supporting an order on policy grounds and finding it unconstitutional. I do not think [Trump’s travel ban is] unconstitutional. I do think the Supreme Court will uphold it even if [Neil] Gorsuch is not yet on the Supreme Court.” —Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz

Alpha Jackass: “The senator from Kentucky [Rand Paul] is now working for Vladimir Putin.” —Sen. John McCain

Demo-gogues: “I think what’s going on now is a fundamental question in our government about whether or not the Justice Department, including our U.S. attorneys, are truly independent and committed to the rule of law or whether or not they are tame and more committed to Donald Trump and Donald Trump’s agenda.” —Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Late-night humor: “College students are out of town for spring break. This is the time of year students take a well-deserved break from partying and drinking at school to go party and drink on a beach or perhaps another town.” —Jimmy Kimmel

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:14:46 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post Digest 3-16-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

Mid-Day Digest

Mar. 16, 2017


    Another judge takes issue with Trump’s second travel ban for the wrong reasons.
    So it turns out that study about how “racist” voter ID laws are is complete bunk.
    When it comes to Trump’s tax returns, Democrats are awfully deceptive.
    Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.


“One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” —Thomas Jefferson (1825)

Banning the Travel Ban, Redux1

By Allyne Caan

Just one day before President Donald Trump’s revised immigration executive order was slated to take effect, a federal judge in Hawaii has blocked it. Surprise!

In a 43-page order2, Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a preliminary injunction against the order, claiming the challenge against it had a “likelihood of success” based on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. To his credit, at least Judge Watson cited the Constitution, even if incorrectly — especially since the state of Hawaii, as one of the plaintiffs in the case, argued against the order based on the impact it would have on the state’s university system and tourism industry. Because nothing is more important than national security except, well, lots of happy tourists from the six countries on Trump’s ban list.

Instead, Judge Watson bought the Establishment Clause argument of plaintiff Dr. Ismail Elshikh, which basically says he feels the executive order is a condemnation by the government of his Muslim religion that would make him and his family feel like second class citizens. Watson agreed, writing that “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”

Clearly, Watson is more concerned with a couple of Trump’s statements on the campaign trail than the actual law at hand.

More to the point, has anyone told the good doctor and judge that jihadi terrorists are Muslim3? Or that the six nations on the ban list are pretty much the most dangerous and least vetted places in the world?

Although Watson concedes this order “does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion” and that the government defends it “principally because of its religious neutral text” in that it applies to individuals of all religions in six countries linked to terrorism, yet he blisteringly claims, “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable.”

Of course, as Hans von Spakovsky notes4, there actually was some logic in selecting the six countries named in the order: “Three of the countries — Iran, Syria, and Sudan — are listed by the State Department as official sponsors of terrorism, while the other three — Libya, Somalia, and Yemen — were listed as ‘countries of concern’ because of their terrorism problems by Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security secretary under Obama.”

Undoubtedly, had Watson or anyone else scoured the world to find predominantly Christian or Hindu countries that are official sponsors of terrorism, he would have come up empty handed. But facts aside (as they often are when it comes to judicial rulings), for now at least, the order is on hold.

Trump blasted the “terrible” ruling that was “done by a judge for political reasons.” In fact, he said, “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.”

Meanwhile, the First Amendment isn’t the only one getting attention when it comes to immigration. The Tenth is getting in on the action, too. On Monday, Tennessee became the first state to use the “reserved powers” clause to sue the federal government — not for keeping immigrants out but for forcing refugee resettlement within state borders.

The Tennessean reports5, “The lawsuit … alleges that the federal government has violated the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution and that all other powers are reserved for the states.” It argues that the feds have “unduly forced states to pay for the refugee resettlement program” and “asks the court to force the federal government to stop resettling refugees in Tennessee until all costs associated with the settlement are incurred by the federal government.” The Tennessean reports that in fiscal year 2016, more than 2,000 refugees were resettled in the state.

Of course, Barack Obama, not Donald Trump, ordered the forced resettlement, though as of yet, Trump hasn’t vacated that order. Hence, although filed against the Trump administration, the lawsuit is targeting an Obama-era policy.

It remains to be seen how the court will rule, but if Tennessee wins, perhaps Hawaii will volunteer to take Tennessee’s allotment of refugees. After all, opposition to Trump’s executive order aside, of the nearly 85,000 refugees the U.S. admitted in fiscal year 2016, guess how many the Aloha State took in? Exactly zero6.


Anti-Voter ID Study Debunked7

Last month the Leftmedia heralded a study8 from the universities of San Diego and Bucknell purporting to show that voter ID laws suppress the minority vote. The Washington Post helped the cause by injecting a racist angle, running a story titled, “New evidence that voter ID laws ‘skew democracy’ in favor of white Republicans.” The trouble is, the study turns out to be bunk. Professors from Stanford, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania released their review9 of the voter ID study and, well, you could say the professors gave it an “F.”

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner sums it up10: The original study’s authors “used the wrong data, they misinterpreted that data, they failed to take into account other pre-existing factors that explain differences between states with and without voter ID, and when tested, their model demonstrably assumes what it is trying to prove.”

The Left’s opposition to common sense voter ID laws has been a long-running effort to promote the false narrative that such laws are inherently racist and are a tool of Republicans designed to suppress the minority vote. On this flawed basis, leftists summarily dismiss legitimate concerns over the integrity of the vote as being merely Republican political pandering and the problem of voter fraud as practically nonexistent.

The review of the study flatly contradicts what its authors originally claimed. The reviewing professors found no varying voting numbers between those states with voter ID laws and those without. The review states, “In no specification do we find that primary or general turnout significantly declined between 2010 and 2014 in states that implemented a strict voter ID law in the interim.” And why would it? Various other ID laws11 abound across the nation and in every state, and those laws are not deemed racist or suppressive. They are understood to be common sense tools necessary for the proper functioning of a modern society. Certainly for any representative government to function with integrity, it must protect its citizens' vote.

What is clear is that the progenitors of the faulty study manipulated the data in order to support their political agenda. Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, states, “For a perfect example of the term ‘alternate facts’ look no further [than this faulty study]. For years, activists and academics have been searching for the silver bullet to prove voter ID is harmful to minorities, despite broad support for the laws across every demographic.” Too often what is passed off as “scientific fact” is more accurately categorized as unsubstantiated opinion.

The Dems' Tax Deception Problem12

Democrats like chiding Republicans on the tax issue, particularly when it comes to “the wealthy” who “don’t pay their fair share.” It’s a convenient talking point geared toward constituents because it conjures up feelings of anger, jealousy and resentment. And the Democrat Party has exploited it to the fullest extent possible in an effort to sway elections.

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:13:14 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 3-15-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

Chattanooga’s gang violence has increased significantly in the last four years under its inept and philandering Democrat mayor, Andy Berke. Despite that increase, just ahead of the recent election Berke announced his support13 for the faux sanctuary city parade, most assuredly giving violent crime a boost.

On that latter assertion, my lib lawyer acquaintance insisted that sanctuary cities are safer than other cities, citing a study by the leftist Annenberg Public Policy Center14.

Well, not exactly. I responded that the study primarily cited crime-rate comparison by immigrants and non-immigrant populations, not illegal aliens.

He responded with another study from the Cato Institute15 on immigration and crime. But this study also primarily cited crime-rate comparison by immigrants versus non-immigrant populations, not illegal aliens. In fact, the Cato study concluded with this caveat: “Note on Illegal Immigration — The public focus is on the crime rates of unauthorized or illegal immigrants. The research papers above mostly include all immigrants regardless of legal status.”

Now, I would agree with research findings that legal immigrants are less likely to commit criminal acts than some indigenous racial or ethnic groups — particularly poor blacks and Hispanics who’ve been enslaved by generations of leftist statist policies on what amount to urban poverty plantations16.

I then advised the lawyer that I wasn’t basing my conclusion about crime and sanctuary cities on political rhetoric from either end of the spectrum but on the facts — and the fact is that in almost all declared sanctuary cities, violence is growing rapidly. For example, in 2015, in one of the nation’s largest sanctuary cities, Los Angeles, violent crime was up 19.9%: homicides up 10.2%, shootings up 12.6%, rapes up 8.6%, robberies up 12.3% and aggravated assault up 27.5%.

Of course, we have covered the explosion of violent crime17 in the most celebrated of sanctuary cities, Chicago, under its inept Democrat mayor, Rahm Emanuel.

But these grim statistics alone don’t prove that the increase in violence is due to criminal aliens, primarily because the Obama administration intentionally scrubbed federal criminal records of data that would identify assailants as criminal aliens versus U.S. residents. But one GAO study from 201118 did sneak through, and it indicated that the percentage of criminal aliens in U.S. prisons is disproportionate to the estimated percentage of illegal aliens in America.

However, this does prove my case: I have spoken with federal and state law enforcement command line personnel across the nation — they are my first-hand sources on illegal aliens and crime — and they consistently make two declarations about violent crime:

    The perpetrators of 95% of violence in major sanctuary cities are associated with gangs and/or drugs networks.

    The most violent gang and drug networks have been infiltrated by criminal aliens.

It is no coincidence that in the nation’s largest “sanctuary city,” New York, it was announced this week that 10 of the 14 members of the MS-13 gang, who were indicted for the brutal murder of two teenage girls in neighboring Suffolk County, are criminal aliens.

Finally, I asked my acquaintance to view this video message19 from Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones to Barack Obama, after two deputies, Danny Oliver and Michael Davis, were murdered by an illegal immigrant20 on Obama’s watch.

The deputies' widows, Jessica Davis and Susan Oliver, were in the gallery for Trump’s February address to Congress21. “Their husbands,” said Trump, “were slain in the line of duty in California. They were pillars of their community. These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations. Sitting with Susan is her daughter, Jenna. Jenna, I want you to know that your father was a hero, and that tonight you have the love of an entire country supporting you and praying for you.”

Notably, a colleague who recently retired after a career in both military and federal civilian law enforcement had this suggestion for political leaders refusing to enforce our nation’s immigration laws in their jurisdictions: “Any state or local government leaders inviting illegal aliens into their ‘sanctuary cities’ should lose the qualified immunity normally granted to government officials acting under color of law, thus leaving them open to civil suits from the victims (or survivors of victims) of the violent crimes committed in those jurisdictions by illegal aliens.”

Now, removing that legal liability limitation would be a Trump executive order that would give pandering sanctuary city politicians reason to reconsider.

While there are police chiefs who oppose deportation, the basis for most of those objections (those not politically motivated to appease a mayor) is concern about the increased threat to their officers resulting from interactions with offenders who are criminal aliens.

And a final note: There is some good news on the illegal migration from south of the border. Whether you approve of Donald Trump’s border enforcement policies or not, his commitment to enforce Rule of Law22 has already had a dramatic effect on illegal border crossings23. According to Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly, in the first month of this year24, “the flow of illegal border crossings as measured by apprehensions and the prevention of inadmissible persons at our southern border dropped by 40 percent.”

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertas — 1776

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:12:16 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 3-15-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

Are Sanctuary Cities Safer?

By Mark Alexander

Mar. 15, 2017

“The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles good or bad which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.” —George Washington1 (1794)

My interactions with rational liberals (not always an oxymoron) provide a window into how they process “facts,” reshaping them to comport with their statist and utopian worldviews.

I had an opportunity to engage one such lefty this week — an acquaintance who’s an attorney, and who took strong exception to my characterization of so-called “sanctuary cities” as being more dangerous because they advertise immunity for illegal aliens, thus attracting more violent offenders.

Liberals, of course, become insufferably sanctimonious when advocating for things as ostensibly wonderful as a “sanctuary,” but, despite all the “warm and fuzzy feelings,” the secret among Democratic Party2 leaders is that the sanctuary city movement is nothing more than a pandering political charade aimed at Hispanic voters — and sanctimonious fellow leftist elites.

The previous administration’s “immigration reform strategy3” was designed to fail, because otherwise it would flood the markets of their dwindling union and blue collar constituencies with cheap immigrant labor, and the former would never tolerate the latter. Instead, the policy has always been one of smoke and mirrors: placating Hispanic voters with empty promises of blanket amnesty, while never losing a constituent by fulfilling that promise.

That notwithstanding, there are now more than 5004 sanctuary cities, large and small, all across the United States. That’s almost twice the number of a year ago. Not surprisingly, the growth has been driven by opposition to President Donald Trump’s commitment to enforce our nation’s immigration laws5. Consequently, Trump has put those cities on notice6, threatening to cut $2.7 billion in federal funding if they refuse to abide by the law.

So, here’s how my debate with a big-hearted but light-headed lawyer began.

Last week, a friend was on his way home to our mountain community outside of Chattanooga. He stopped at a hardware store for some supplies, and when he returned to his vehicle in broad daylight, he was subjected to aggravated kidnapping (at gunpoint) and robbery. A local gang thug forced my friend into his vehicle for an “ATM joyride” — after stealing the money in his wallet, the thug forced him to drive to a nearby money machine and withdraw hundreds of dollars. My friend kept his calm, though, and was later released without bodily harm.

My friend, a physician and man of strong faith who had no option to fend off the armed assailant, told the gang member at the end of the ordeal as the offender left his car, “I will be praying for you — and this story is not over.” The gang member was later arrested, and I suspect the next chapter of this story will likely be my friend’s role in leading the offender to the transformation of God’s grace — behind bars.

But the first chapter of this story — which now occurs with alarming regularity across our country — could have ended in violence and tragedy. Indeed, most gang violence occurred between gang members a few years ago, but it is now metastasizing into frequent violence against citizens who have nothing to do with gangs.

According to the FBI’s most recent Uniform Crime Reports (2015), there were 1,197,704 violent crimes, up 3.9% from 2014 — a trend that started several years earlier after Barack Obama initiated his war on cops7.

That violence, which is erupting across the U.S., is part of Obama’s failed legacy.

For the record, my home state of Tennessee ranks near the top of conservative states8. Overall, conservative principles have put our state at the top of many lists, including economic growth and freedom indexes. Just this week, our state initiated a lawsuit against the federal government rejecting Obama’s leftover Middle Eastern migrant resettlement plans, citing violation of the Tenth Amendment9 as the basis of its complaint. (Yes, they are migrants, not refugees10, according to the UN’s own accounting of the mass migration.)

However, our urban centers have been subject to the same social entropy and blight that afflicts other cities under Democrat “leadership.” And the most costly measure of that blight is violent crime.

Memphis is ranked #4 on the list of most dangerous cities11 nationwide, and now Chattanooga is moving to the top of the ratings12 for violent cities with populations under 200,000.

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:10:13 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post Digest 3-15-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

As summarized brilliantly by Robert Tracinski26 at The Federalist, “The point of insurance is not that healthy people pay for sick people. … The point of health insurance is not to provide health care. The point is to hedge against financial risk. … You still set aside a certain amount every month, as you do with savings, but you control for the short-term risk of needing your benefits before you have fully paid for them. Some people will pay premiums for only a few months before they need the benefits. Others will pay for decades without needing them. You accept this because you don’t know ahead of time which one of those people you are going to be.”

“But you can make calculations about which one of those people you are likely to be,” Tracinski continues. “So you want your premiums to be correlated to your own level of risk and not just be a slush fund to be ‘shared’ with others, because that looks a whole lot like getting ripped off. If you find yourself required to pay extremely high premiums while you’re still young and healthy and with a healthy lifestyle, and therefore with a very low risk of using much of your coverage, then you may well decide you’re better off without insurance.”

By definition, ObamaCare can’t be called insurance because it prohibits insurers from basing premiums on risk factors such as age, race (certain races have higher likelihoods of contracting certain diseases than others), lifestyle (smoking, drinking alcohol, and promiscuous sexual behavior all significantly increase health risks), etc. So a chain-smoking 50-year-old man could not be charged much more than a 23-year-old female triathlete. Insurers were also not allowed to deny coverage, or charge higher premiums, for those with pre-existing conditions.

This creates a perverse incentive for both younger people who were unlikely to be sick and for people living an unhealthy lifestyle to go without insurance, knowing they could wait until they needed costly medical care before signing up. At worst they would have to pay a small penalty, which would be more than offset by the money saved from not paying monthly premiums for years.

Without cost being tied to risk, there is little incentive for people to be responsible and to sign up for insurance. In the end, the insurance companies, who salivated at the thought of government forcing everyone to buy their product, lost billions of dollars as they saw primarily sicker and older people signing up, without the young and healthy paying premiums to offset the costs.

That’s why 18 of the 23 ObamaCare co-ops have already gone bankrupt, and why major insurers are pulling out of markets left and right.

Fixing the failures of the health insurance market will require a return to free market principles. It will require insurance to be insurance, not a slush fund shoveling money from the young and healthy to the older and infirm. It means returning to a model where we pay for routine care out of pocket27, and use insurance as it is meant to be used — namely, to deal with unforeseen, catastrophic health problems. How much would auto insurance cost if government required it to cover new tires, oil changes, and windshield wipers?

Real reform will require risk-based premiums, and addressing the issue of pre-existing conditions, which would be better addressed by moving those people into a high-risk pool subsidized by the states. That’s welfare, not insurance, but it would make risk assessment more reality-based and lower overall costs.

It will require a firm spine and some political capital, but our leaders need to have a frank discussion with the American people28 and disabuse them of the notion of an eternal, cost-free gravy train. We are at $20 trillion in debt, and rising. Major entitlements are the primary drivers. We can either responsibly address the crisis now, or wait until the house of cards collapses. Prudence and wisdom dictates that we act now.


    The American Melting Pot29 — Is it demographics or an idea? A look at what makes us great.
    Just What the Doctor Ordered30 — Trump’s choice to head the FDA will bring badly needed reform to the agency.


    John Stossel: Ignorant Media31
    Ben Shapiro: Are We on the Verge of Violence?32
    Walter Williams: [Liberty Is Not for Wimps)(https://patriotpost.us/opinion/47950)

For more, visit Right Opinion33.


John Stossel: “As this week’s storm approached the East Coast, the media reverted to breathless hype: ‘monster storm … very dangerous.’ Here I blame my beloved free market: Predicting scary weather works. Viewers tune in. What galls me more is the reporters' government-centric thinking. ‘Everything is closed,’ they say. ‘Employees can’t get to work.’ But the corner grocery stayed open. So did many gas stations and restaurants. Why is it that when government buildings close, so many private businesses stay open? Because their own money is at stake. The store’s employees probably make less money than government workers. They are less likely to own all-wheel-drive cars. But they get to work. Some sleep there. Their own money is on the line. Reporters don’t think about the distinction.”


Non Compos Mentis: “When someone gets shot by a gun with a silencer, it’s quiet. Witnesses might not hear. Police will be less likely to track down the shooter.” —Kirsten Gillibrand on suppressors, a.k.a. “silencers” that don’t actually make anything silent (“And you can’t scream for help because the silencer pulls sound out of your mouth.” —Frank Fleming)

Belly laugh of the week: “[My young son] now does an impression where whenever I’m bothering him he says, ‘Fake news.’” —CNN’s Jake Tapper (Smart kid!)

The Snowflake Monologues: “I’d like to share with you an experience I had today. It’s uncomfortable and scary for me… An older man with white hair came up to me at my seat today at a basketball game. He said, ‘May I take your picture?’ I said ‘Yes.’ … He said to me with open hostility as he was backing away, ‘We like Trump.’ … I feel very sad that this happened, and frankly scared.” —Ashley Judd

Flip-Flop Minority Leader: “If Republicans insist on inserting poison pill riders such as defunding Planned Parenthood, building a border wall, or starting a deportation force, they will be shutting down the government and delivering a severe blow to our economy.” —Chuck Schumer (“In 2006, Schumer was among 26 Democrats who voted for the Secure Fence Act … that was passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.” —The Daily Signal’s Rachel del Guidice)

Hyperbole: “If this [health care] legislation is passed, and millions of people are thrown off of health insurance, not able to get to a doctor when they must, thousands of Americans will die.” —Bernie Sanders (They won’t, but thousands of people actually would die under Sanders' socialist vision.)

And last… “This CBO thing about 14 million people ‘losing’ coverage is like saying people who voluntarily leave the army ‘lose’ their base housing.” —Jonah Goldberg

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:09:00 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post Digest 3-15-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

Mid-Day Digest

Mar. 15, 2017


    What’s the real deal with Trump’s tax returns?
    As DC closed for a snow day, here are some men who never leave their posts.
    Insurance isn’t what most people think it is, and that’s what’s wrong with health care.
    Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.


“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.” —James Madison (1792)


The Real Story on Trump’s Tax Return1

Tuesday evening, with much ballyhoo, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow revealed two pages of Donald Trump’s 2005 tax return, which she claimed to have obtained under what can only be described as dubious circumstances. Maddow declared, “For some reason that we cannot discern, this document has been made available. It has surfaced. It has been handed to a reporter.” And what does the return show? Trump earned a lot of money — $150 million — and paid a lot in federal taxes — $38 million, or what amounts to about 25% of his income. Stop the presses!

Catching wind of the story, the White House preempted MSNBC by releasing a statement that included Trump’s earnings and taxes paid. The statement concluded, “Despite his substantial income figure and tax paid, it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns. The dishonest media can continue to make this part of their agenda, while the President will focus on his, which includes tax reform that will benefit all Americans.”

During the primaries, we called for Trump to release his tax records2 for reasons of learning who and what he has supported, not to know how much he’s worth or whether he paid his “fair share” in taxes. We also noted then and will reiterate now that Trump is under no legal obligation to share his tax returns, irrespective of what previous presidential candidates have traditionally practiced. What is truly disconcerting is the growing notion that it’s totally acceptable for the mainstream media to obtain and disseminate illegally leaked confidential information in an effort to harm Trump.

This latest Leftmedia witch-hunt exposes yet again just how anti-Trump they are. Recall the MSM collective yawn over Barack Obama’s numerous nefarious connections3, such as Jeremiah Wright4 or Bill Ayers. Where was the dogged reporting by the MSM exposing Obama’s truly scandalous past associations? It was conveniently absent. In fact, great energy and effort was put into defending Obama against legitimate questions, often by dismissing them as merely the kooky concerns of the tinfoil hat club.

Now the Leftmedia is invested in the narrative of Trump being illegitimate, and no matter what the facts reveal, they have committed themselves to discrediting Trump at every conceivable opportunity. That’s what’s truly behind this tax story. And yet as has happened repeatedly, it’s proving only to blow up in their faces.

Slush Holidays at Taxpayer Expense5

By Mark Alexander

Yesterday afternoon I received a call from one of our contributing authors after he left work and was driving north on I-95 just south of Washington, DC. He found it humorous that there was not a single vehicle in the southbound lanes — normally a parking lot of rush-hour traffic. Today, Weather.com and other “weather news” outlets are doing their best to excuse all the hype they stirred up over the great March blizzard6. But the Daily Mail called winter storm Stella “The Blizzard that WASN’T,” while the New York Post declared “NYC Blizzard is a Dud.”

Fortunately, the DC media posted a “Snow Survival Guide7” ahead of the two inches of slush that besieged the nation’s capital yesterday, so all food market shelves were denuded of milk and bread.

Of course the 24-hour weather prognosticators face the same constraints as the rest of the 24-hour news recycling talkingheads — they are motivated, first and foremost, by market share and advertising revenues. In other words, they are driven by financial incentive, which is why they incessantly hype news — everything is a crisis, stay tuned 24/7! Of course there is rarely national news that rises to the level of the media’s hyperbolic “ALERT” bulletins. But in all fairness, the weather prognosticators have the task of trying to predict something, while the rest of the MSM are constantly rehashing news about something past — ad nauseam.

Top Headlines8

    Schumer, who voted for the border wall in 2006, now threatens a government shutdown over funding it. (The Daily Signal9)

    GOP senators say House health bill won’t pass without changes. (The Wall Street Journal10)

    White House seeks to cut billions in funding for United Nations. (Foreign Policy11)

    Trump to ease Obama-era rule on auto fuel economy standards. (The Washington Times12)

    Congress demands investigation into Obama administration meddling in foreign elections. (The Washington Free Beacon13)

    Senate Judiciary Committee demands all records on FBI plan to pay British ex-spy who made “Russia dossier” on Trump. (CNS News14)

    Study debunks oft-cited research alleging voter ID laws are racist. (LifeZette15)

    Tennessee sues federal government over “refugee” resettlement, citing violation of the Tenth Amendment. (CNS News16)

    Student loan defaults are surging, study finds. (Associated Press17)

    Congress passes legislation to undo Obama restrictions on drug tests for unemployed. (Washington Examiner18.)

    Humpday Humor: Disrespect our flag? Here’s a challenge for you! (Video19)

    Policy: How the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is trying to kill the Second Amendment. (America’s 1st Freedom20)

    Policy: America’s way ahead in Syria. (Critical Threats21)

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report22.

Making Health Insurance Insurance Again23

By Louis DeBroux

The release this week of the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the GOP’s ObamaCare replacement24 bill brought on immediate condemnation, hyperventilation, and Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling theatrics from all the usual suspects in the Democrat Party and the Leftmedia (but we repeat ourselves).

According to the CBO, the GOP plan would reduce the deficit by several hundred billion dollars, but add 14 million to the ranks of the uninsured in 2018. Pretty horrible, right?

Not if we keep in mind the CBO’s track record, which is not very good. By law, the CBO must score legislation statically (essentially net-zero formulations) rather than dynamically (factoring in human behavioral responses to economic changes). Unable to factor in human behavior, CBO projections are generally off by a wide margin.

In 2009, the CBO predicted ObamaCare would cost taxpayers $900 billion over 10 years, but just two years later the projected costs had more than doubled. Likewise, the number of Americans added to the insurance rolls was a fraction of projections, and a sizeable chunk of those added were lumped into Medicaid, which is a taxpayer-funded welfare program, not insurance.

Lost in the discussion of premiums, enrollment rates, deductibles and so forth is the fact that ObamaCare was never an insurance program. Rather, it was a quasi-socialist health payment program, a temporary bridge to what Democrats actually wanted — single-payer, government-run socialized health care. ObamaCare was never intended to work; at least, not as it was sold to the stupid American people25.

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:07:20 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post Digest 3-14-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

On paper these ideas of alternative sources sound fantastic, and perhaps in the decades to come they will be consistent and more affordable. But for now, oil, is still the cheapest, most reliable form of energy, and U.S. energy policy should reflect that reality.

In the summer of 2016, Rystad Energy, an oil consulting firm, released new data23 revealing that the United States has more oil reserves at an estimated 264 billion barrels than any other country in the world. This, for the first time in history, surpasses Russia at 256 billion barrels and Saudi Arabia at 212 billion barrels.

If we have so much of our own oil, it seems reasonable to ask, why are we still relying on the Middle East to provide this valuable resource? The short answer is that we only have approximately 22 billion barrels of proven reserves — that is, we only have the ability to tap into 22 billion barrels of oil due to technological limitations and regulations. The cost of extraction is another factor in calculating proven reserves, which is why “cheap oil” effectively reduces these reserves — cost exceeds profitability when oil is cheap.

Several years ago, oil production in the U.S. increased substantially with the use of new extraction technology. Hydrologic fracturing, or “fracking,” was the new means of production and Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Texas saw the largest increases in oil (and natural gas) production.

This new availability of oil posed a significant threat to the U.S.’s previous primary supplier of oil, Saudi Arabia. Before this expansion in extraction, the price for a barrel of oil was $115. Once the 21st Century American boom began, the Saudis, in an attempt to drive American innovators out of the oil business, lowered the price per barrel to $30, gambling their economy on the hopes that U.S. oil companies would run out of cash and close up shop, thereby forcing continued American reliance upon Saudi Arabian oil.

Their plan didn’t quite work. In fact, the Saudi economy is declining. “The International Monetary Fund in January slashed its forecast for Saudi economic growth this year to 0.4 percent from 2 percent,” Bloomberg reports24. “Net foreign assets, though still above $500 billion, are shrinking as the government uses savings to plug a budget deficit that reached $79 billion last year — $107 billion if delayed payments to contractors are included.”

What does all of this mean and why does it matter?

First, Saudi Arabia’s declining economy has weakened its strategic position in the Arab world, and that, combined with Barack Obama boosting Iran’s influence, has fueled instability in the Middle East.

Second, the U.S., because of the technological advances resulting in more American oil production, has transitioned from being a net oil importer to a net exporter of oil. In fact, the biggest onshore oil discovery in 30 years was just announced in Alaska. This, of course, is welcome news with its lower consumer fuel prices and more American jobs.

Finally, as we look forward, President Donald Trump’s administration has the opportunity to create sound energy policy. We should continue striving toward energy independence, but do so without paralyzing other economies in the world. Furthermore, the largest driver of cost in the energy sector is regulation. The Trump administration should push for deregulation across the board for those businesses who are seeking new, better and safer ways to tap into America’s vast resources. Unleashing the power of competition amongst American businesses and workers is what will drive success in the energy sector.

Our nation has a bright future when it comes to energy. The key is going to be harnessing that energy through the free market.


    Is This the End of ‘Liberalism’ in the USA?25 — Militant leftist extremists have taken over a large swath of the Left.
    Rolling Back the Administrative State26 — Trump’s proposed budget: More military, less for other agencies.
    College Students' Fascist View of Tolerance27 — Most students think Muslims and Christians don’t have the same rights.
    Kids Slammed for Wearing Patriotic Clothing28 — Des Moines North High School has a large refugee population.
    Democrats Flip-Flop on Russia29 — A video montage of politics at its worst.


    Dennis Prager: Some on the Left Now Criticize the Students They Created30
    Stephen Moore: Europe’s Lesson Teaches Us: Don’t Go Green31
    Hans von Spakovsky & Grant Strobl: What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity32

For more, visit Right Opinion33.


Marvin J. Folkertsma: “There is a chasm separating our country’s elites from regular citizens, a matter that has been addressed increasingly by thoughtful observers of American politics. Although developments in our country have not reached the crisis levels that destroyed Rome, for instance, or France under Louis XVI, clearly the existence of vast, interconnected swath of overseers — actors and activists, professors and pundits, politicians and bureaucrats — who are insulated from reality and the consequences of what they say and do spells doom for America. Which means that any measures that force elites into the world of responsibility should be welcomed, regardless of preposterous screeches of protest such efforts would ignite. The normals among us fervently hope that such efforts succeed before it is too late, before our ‘land of the free’ succumbs to the tyrannies (soft or hard) that inevitably ensue when irresponsible elites lose all interest in preserving the country that made them so important in the first place.”


Insight: “To be happy at home is the ultimate result of all ambition, the end to which every enterprise and labor tends, and of which every desire prompts the prosecution.” —Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Upright: “Nothing in Washington happens by itself; no policy ever self-destructs; it takes the political equivalent of a pile of plastic explosives to make something happen. Unless, of course, Obamacare suddenly (and inexplicably) were applied to members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, their staffs, and everyone else on a government payroll. Then, before you could say ‘Affordable Healthcare,’ Barack Obama’s signature legislation would vanish overnight. In short, forcing lawmakers to obey their own laws would do wonders to clarify minds and speed up lethargic congressional processes.” —Marvin J. Folkertsma

Non Compos Mentis: “I hope that [Republicans] would pull the bill. That’s really the only decent thing to do. Numbers are important. They see the numbers. They should know how that transfers into people’s lives.” —Nancy Pelosi who is suddenly concerned about a health care bill’s harmful effects

Contemplations of an alternative journalist: “Is it as striking to you in the briefing room as it is to television viewers that an alternative universe is being proposed, alternative definitions are being trotted out in real time?” —Brian Williams

Village Idiots: “Nazism is alive in the West.” —Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

And last… “Why would anyone be offended by someone saying that ‘Western civilization’ is preferable to the alternative? No one is forced to come here. So why would any newcomer be insulted if his prospective home expected him to adopt Western values? That’s what we do here. To be American is an ideal.” —David Harsanyi

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

 on: March 20, 2017, 07:06:15 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
The Patriot Post Digest 3-14-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription

Mid-Day Digest

Mar. 14, 2017


    Don’t take the CBO’s latest projections on GOP health reform as gospel truth.
    Sonia Sotomayor suddenly thinks judges aren’t political.
    America’s energy boom has the future looking bright.
    Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.


“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams (1770)


The CBO: The Government’s Favorite Psychic1

On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released its report on the projected impact of the House Republicans' American Health Care Act (AHCA). The CBO estimated the law would result in a reduction of budget deficits by some $337 billion over a 10-year period, as well as up to 24 million more uninsured Americans by 2026. House Speaker Paul Ryan predicted that the report would estimate an increased number of uninsured. He said Sunday, “The one thing I’m certain will happen is CBO will say, ‘Well, gosh. Not as many people will get coverage.’ You know why? Because this isn’t a government mandate. This is not the government that makes you buy what we say you should buy, and therefore the government thinks you’re all going to buy it.”

It’s always easier to insure more people by forcing them to buy insurance.

Barack Obama’s goal with the Affordable Care Act was not affordable health care, but socialized health care — the first step toward a single-payer system similar to those found in many European nations. Republicans are in the unenviable position of solving a difficult two-part problem. The first task is repealing and dismantling ObamaCare, while the second is to find an effective solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

The split within the GOP falls over determining which problem is the greater issue. For conservatives like Rand Paul, the primary issue is one of freedom and a principled fight against encroaching socialism. For more moderate Republicans like Paul Ryan, dealing with rising health care costs takes precedence. Both sides agree that ObamaCare is a disaster.

Predictably, the Leftmedia has taken the CBO report and used it as another brush by which to paint its favorite strawman caricature of heartless Republicans. Never mind that the average premiums under ObamaCare this year will increase by 25% with continued increases in subsequent years, whereas the projections for the Republicans' plan show an initial premium increase of between 15% and 20% followed by a steady decline over the next decade.

And one more point of emphasis: Remember those past CBO projections for ObamaCare enrollment and cost numbers? Prior to the Affordable Care Act’s passage, the CBO predicted that the law would cut the deficit by upwards of $1 trillion in 20 years. Now, it’s admitted that ObamaCare will instead only add to the deficit. And those 30 million more Americans insured by 2017? The actual number is 14 million. So don’t take CBO projections as gospel truth. Its estimates have been way off the mark with ObamaCare. Why should its latest projections on the AHCA now be trusted?

Judicial Activist Denies Judicial Activism2

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor claims to be mourning the burgeoning sentiment that judicial activism is permeating American politics and undermining Rule of Law. While visiting the University of California, Berkeley, last week, the Associated Press reported3 that “Sotomayor said judges try to be fair and impartial and don’t have rigid beliefs they apply to every case. She encouraged people to view judges as ‘human beings who care deeply about what we’re doing.’” This comes 16 years after she told the same school something entirely different: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

In truth, “there is much in the body of American law which was never specifically spelled out in the Constitution,” Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw retorts4. “That requires the exercise of individual judgment and the application of instincts when interpreting the law.” That being said, “These are human beings we’re talking about and it’s a group of people who have spent their professional careers steeped in a study of subjects which are permanently interwoven with politics. How are we to expect them to arrive at their positions without some baggage trailing behind them?”

Take, for example, Justice Sotomayor in United States v. Texas (Obama’s executive amnesty). As we recently reported5, she refused to recuse herself despite having long promoted open borders. That she ignored this conflict of interest and ruled on the case anyway reeks of judicial activism. What the Court needs is balance, which is obtained through jurists who have the strength, courage and goodwill to not let prejudices interfere. As her soon-to-be colleague, Neil Gorsuch, has observed: “A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge.” That’s something Justice Sotomayor has yet to understand.

Top Headlines6

    Trump faces challenge of visa overstays, the largest source of illegal immigration. (The Daily Signal7)

    Democrats hint they’ll shut down the government to stop funding for Trump’s border wall. (McClatchy8.)

    Spicer: Trump plans to donate his presidential salary and “let the press corps determine where it should go.” (CNS News9)

    Trump’s skeletal crew — The administration needs to pick up the pace of hiring. (National Review10)

    Obama lawyers move fast to join fight against Trump. (Reuters11)

    Putin spokesman contradicts Clinton team’s claim they didn’t meet any Russian officials during campaign. (The Washington Free Beacon12)

    Keen Sense of the Obvious: CBO says defunding Planned Parenthood would lead to thousands more births. (The Washington Post13)

    Ferguson protests after latest Michael Brown video: Shots fired, one officer with a broken nose, attempted arson of a police car. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch14)

    Foes of government excess to pick “Champion of Waste” in March Madness parody. (The Daily Signal15)

    Legal gun ownership surges in Chicago. (The Washington Free Beacon16)

    Policy: Four common-sense Medicaid solutions House Republicans should put in their Obamacare replacement. (Washington Examiner17)

    Policy: Don’t trust those CBO health care numbers. (Investor’s Business Daily18.)

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19.
Don’t Miss Patriot Humor

Check out Camouflage20.

If you’d like to receive Patriot Humor by email, update your subscription here21.

The American Energy Boom22

By Paul Albaugh

For years, we’ve heard numerous politicians declare that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East, and that we need to become energy independent. We’ve also heard that we need to completely cease use of fossil fuels. Arguments include eventually running out of oil, the danger of over-reliance on other countries to fuel our economy and that fossil fuels cause climate change.

We were told, primarily during the years of the previous administration, that the United States must lead the way to seek out and develop alternative sources of energy — “green” energy — such as wind and solar in order to prevent mankind from destroying ourselves via the excessive use of fossil fuels.

 on: March 20, 2017, 08:32:47 AM 
Started by Soldier4Christ - Last post by Soldier4Christ
Statement of Christ's Purpose

“For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” (John 13:15)
Schools, businesses, and institutions are all well-advised to develop and live by a “statement of purpose” if they are to be successful, evaluating each activity by its effectiveness in fulfilling that purpose.
As Christians, we should also have a well-defined purpose. Each individual’s specific purpose will vary somewhat, depending on that person’s giftedness, background, and circumstances; but since Christ is our example, each Christian’s statement of purpose should reflect His priorities and values.
In many ways, Mark’s gospel provides the most vivid and explicit insight into the work of Jesus, and in this book we see Jesus often repeating His statement of purpose. “Jesus came . . . preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying . . . repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). Jesus Christ had come with the specific purpose of saving the lost, and everything He did pointed to that end. “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (2:17).
Christ not only preached to sinners, but He trained and sent out His followers to see that His mission was effectively carried out, even after He was gone. “And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth. . . . And they went out, and preached that men should repent” (6:7, 12). Regarding His approaching death, He explained: “The Son of man came . . . to give his life a ransom for many” (10:45). As He left them, He commanded, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (16:15).
Our priorities should be the same as His. If everything we do points toward this end, His mission will thereby be accomplished. “Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it” (8:35). JD

 on: March 19, 2017, 06:30:59 PM 
Started by nChrist - Last post by nChrist
How to Fertilize Love
From Timeless Grace Gems
Charles Naylor, 1920

        Love is the greatest thing in earth or Heaven. Out of it flows most of the things that are worth while in life. Love of relatives, love of friends, and love of the brethren (1 John 3:14) make life worth living. There is no heart so empty, as the heart that is without love. There is no life so joyful, as the love-filled life. Love puts a song in the heart, a sparkle in the eye, a smile on the lips, and makes the whole being glad. And God's love is greater than all else. He who has God's love, has a continual feast. There may be sorrow and care and suffering in the life; but if there is God's love, it lightens all these.

        Sometimes there is not the love for the relatives that there ought to be. Sometimes there is not the love for the brethren that should characterize us. When we realize this and feel our lack, the question naturally arises, "How can my love for them be increased?" Plants cannot grow without fertility; that is, the soil must contain the elements necessary to growth. If these are absent, they must be supplied, or there can be no harvest. This is equally true of love — it must be fertilized if it is to grow. Do you realize that you are lacking in love for someone? Do you manifest as much affection toward your spouse as you did in days gone by?

        There are very many things that may choke out love in the home. One of these is the lack of kindness. If you have grown less kind in your feelings, in your actions, and in your words — then love cannot thrive. Kindness is one of the best fertilizers for love. Do you show the same consideration for the feelings and tastes of your spouse as you used to show?

        There are so many people who have two sets of tones in which to speak, and two sets of manners in which they act. They have their company manners — and their family manners. When they have company — then the voice is soft and pleasant, and the manners are agreeable and kindly. They treat their friends with the greatest consideration; but as soon as their friends are gone, the pleasant voice changes into crossness or harshness and fault-finding — and the pleasantness of manner disappears! In how many homes is this true! The greater consideration, the greater kindness — is due the home folks. Otherwise, love cannot flourish. If you wish to have love for your home folks — then you must show them the consideration that is due them.

        Some professors of religion are like the catbird! When it is away from its nest — then it is one of the sweetest of the northern warblers; but when it is close to its nest — then you will hear only a harsh, discordant note. It has no sweetness in its voice while at its nest.

        In the same way, some people reserve all their kindness, tenderness, and sweetness — for those outside the family circle. Is it any wonder that love dies in such a home? "Love must be without hypocrisy." Romans 12:9

        If you realize that you do not love someone enough, begin to consider his desires. Begin to show a special interest in him. Watch for opportunities to be kind to him. Try especially to be agreeable — and you will soon find that this reacts upon yourself; in a short time you will find your love increasing; and the more you follow this course, the more your love will increase.

        I have been asked if we should love all saints the same. Some have even taught that if we were right in our souls, we would love each one of God's children as much as another. This, however, is not possible. Even Jesus loved some of his disciples more than others. There were three — James, Peter, and John — who were closer to him than the others; and of these, John was most beloved. He calls himself "that disciple whom Jesus loved." If love for the brethren depended solely on spiritual things, then, possibly we might love all the same; but it depends to a great extent on other things as well. Jesus loved John much — because of John's loving nature.

        In the same way, we love those most — who seem to us most lovable. We are drawn most to those whose dispositions and characters and interests appeal most strongly to us. There are those who are saved, who, because of their faults or unlovely dispositions — repel us rather than attract us. We will not find ourselves drawn into the same close relations with them as with the others.

        There is danger of a twofold nature. On the one hand, we are liable to love some so much that we become partial towards them to such an extent that others will feel that we do not value them as we should. On the other hand, there is danger of looking at the unlovely qualities in another — until we lose sight of the good that is in him, and grow prejudiced against him until it becomes hard to feel the proper love for him.

        If we realize we do not love some of the brethren as we should — then let us cease looking at the unlovely things, and look for the good things, the noble qualities. Seek out these things, keep them before the mind, overlook the faults and failings and unlovely traits. Begin to show special kindness, make it a point to speak to these brethren kindly; show an interest in them. Watch for a chance to do something helpful; go out of your way to do them favors.

        Possibly your own coldness has much to do with their attitude and feelings. Be as genial and sunshiny toward them, as you are toward your closest friends.

        Some reserved natures need sunshine to open them up, just as do some flowers. Have you not seen flowers open up in the sunshine and throw their fragrance upon the breezes, and then, as a heavy cloud suddenly overspread the sky and the dark shadows fell, quickly close up? It is just that way with some natures. If we radiate sunshine — then they unfold their beauties to us; but if we are cold and distant — then we are permitted to see only the rough exterior. Love begets love. If we so act that love in us may grow and develop, we shall be loved in return.

        Love cannot survive carelessness, indifference, and neglect. These things are poison to the tender plant. We can easily kill the love in our hearts, or we can cultivate and increase it until its blossoms and fragrance are the delight of our lives. If your love is not what it ought to be — then try fertilizing it with kindness, gentleness, and self-sacrifice — and take away the weeds of selfishness, carelessness, and indifference. You will find that love will grow and increase, and become sweeter and more tender with the passing days!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs

Copyright © 1999-2016 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media