Thursday, March 15, 2018


Bill That Protects Freedom of Those for and Against Same-Sex Marriage Angers Some on Left

Sen. Mike Lee has introduced a religious freedom bill that is designed to protect Americans who believe in traditional marriage from punishment by the government.

“What an individual or organization believes about the traditional definition of marriage is not—and should never be—a part of the government’s decision-making process when distributing licenses, accreditations, or grants,” Lee, R-Utah, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal.

The newly introduced version is different from the original version, introduced in 2015, in that it also includes protections for “those who support any federal legal definition of marriage between two people, including same-sex marriage,” CNN reported.

Lee says his bill, reintroduced Thursday, would help protect Americans from being penalized for their religious beliefs.

“The First Amendment Defense Act simply ensures that this will always be true in America—that federal bureaucrats will never have the authority to require those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to choose between their living in accordance with those beliefs and maintaining their occupation or their tax status,” Lee said.

Groups on the left have attacked the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Ian Thompson, a legislative representative, said the bill would promote “taxpayer-funded discrimination.”

The Human Rights Campaign’s Sarah Warbelow told CNN of the change to the legislation: “It appears to be a false attempt or a failed attempt to make this legislation constitutional by making it seem they’re not just targeting LGBTQ people.”

Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans, which works to “secure full nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people nationwide,” was similarly negative.

“Any changes made to this bill can’t hide its true animus: to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people,” Davis told CNN.

Emilie Kao, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that she believes the legislation would provide protection for those who believe in traditional marriage as well as those who believe differently.

“Sen. Lee has introduced much-needed legislation to protect the freedom to act according to the view that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Kao said. “Even though the Supreme Court described this view as ‘decent and honorable’ in Obergefell v. Hodges, we have seen a wave of litigation against people who hold a belief that has been shared by people around the world for millennia. In a pluralistic society, there should be room for civil disagreement on marriage.”

SOURCE






Abortion Advocates Can’t Stand It: Need More Proof the Mexico City Policy Works?

When abortion advocates complain about a policy morning, noon, and night—that’s a win!

Many rituals are associated with Inauguration Day in the United States: the Oath of Office, inaugural balls, and Washington-area residents whose party lost the election listing their homes on Airbnb, just to name a few. And then there’s a lesser-known ritual that’s just as established but even more important: the argument over the Mexico City Policy.

First instituted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City Policy derives its name from the venue of that year’s U.N. conference on “Population and Development.”  The policy states that, as a condition of receiving federal funds, non-governmental organizations agree they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

Every time the White House changes party hands, the Mexico City Policy also changes. Like clockwork. So when Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they rescind the Mexico City Policy. When Republicans like George Bush and Donald Trump come to town, they restore the policy in some form.

Each time the policy is restored, abortion advocates start wringing their hands, warning that the U.S. is putting women’s lives at risk. They cite figures about deaths from “preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.” And recently, they’ve claimed that the latest iteration of the policy is forcing organizations to choose between treating HIV/AIDS and providing “life-saving reproductive health services.”

It’s not clear, of course, how in the world a policy specifically directed at abortion prevents anyone from addressing real health issues. And they conveniently omit the fact that the policy specifically exempts referrals in cases of “rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the woman.”

As Elisha Dunn-Georgiou of Population Action International, recently acknowledged, “the policy does not reduce U.S. funding for health or family planning.” But it does take money from what she calls “the most competent providers of ‘sexual and reproductive health and rights’”—that is, pro-abortion advocacy groups like hers or Planned Parenthood.

So what’s really behind the dire warnings that accompany the reinstatement of the policy is funding. Groups that equate “women’s health” with “abortion rights” attack the Mexico City policy as a “health threat,” even if the only real threat is to their own bottom line.

But there’s also another reason for the hand-wringing over the Mexico City policy, one that even critics have been forced to admit: it’s a policy that works! The policy has forced non-governmental organizations to decide whether their priority is going to be abortion advocacy or women’s health.

In the process, local people are questioning why so many foreigners and government officials consistently present abortion as a solution to all of their problems, when the U.S. government does not support it?

Well, here’s why.  First, abortion really isn’t a solution for women’s health. The all-too-many deaths from pregnancy-and childbirth-related causes in developing nations have little to do with legalizing abortion, a point critics of the policy seem intent on obscuring.

Second, because Christian institutions provide one-third of the medical care in Africa, and they want to promote health, physical and spiritual, not a “culture of death.” That’s why they support the Mexico City Policy.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t be a bit surprised that groups like Planned Parenthood hate it. It denies their funding, and directly challenges their deep, historic, and ideological commitment to abortion on demand.

Which is why denying them funding overseas is a positive development. Now if we could only find a way to deny that funding here at home.

SOURCE







Hollywood Admits It Hates Heartland Values
   
I was disappointed but not surprised that Tyler Perry’s “Boo 2” and “Let There be Light” were not nominated for an Oscar. The films that my friends and family enjoy watching are typically overlooked by the Hollywood elites.

For whatever reason the folks who play make-believe for a living prefer their cinema to be a bit more provocative.

“The Shape of Water” won the 2018 Oscar for Best Picture. It’s the story of an inter-species romance between a mute woman and a half-man/half-fish creature who lives in an aquarium.

It’s a movie about embracing others. Consider Vox’s description of the movie’s only villain: “an angry, bitter, cruel boss-man who’s certain of his own superiority to everyone who isn’t a white man like himself, and whose religion hasn’t helped him learn anything like love.”

“Call Me By Your Name” also won an Oscar. It’s the story of a “romance” between a 24-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy.

“Variety” heralded the film as “the lyrical sensations of erotic and emotional discovery.” The Los Angeles Daily News called it “refreshingly fun, erotic, non-judgmental and both intellectually and emotionally smart.” And the Los Angeles Times declared it “a powerfully erotic and affecting love story.”

For some context, Fox News reports a 23-year-old North Carolina school teacher was arrested in 2017 for having a “romantic” relationship with a 17-year-old boy.

What Hollywood calls a love story the police would call a sex crime.

So why is there a disconnect between the films that tug at the heartstrings of the heartland and the vulgar offerings churned out by Hollywood?

“Out of the nine best picture nominees, only two made more than $100 million. That’s not the point,” Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel explained. “We don’t make films like ‘Call Me By Your Name’ for money. We make them to upset [Vice President] Mike Pence.”

Oh, so they’re doing it on purpose. They are intentionally flaunting their contempt for our values and basic human decency. In other words, Hollywood wants you to fork over 20 bucks to have a radical agenda shoved down your throat.

That’s why one of Hollywood’s most celebrated movies promoted man-boy pedophilia and the other was about a woman who had sex with a fish.

And it wonders why America would rather stay home, pop a bowl of extra buttery Orville Redenbacher and watch a “Last Man Standing” marathon.

SOURCE





America Is the Best Place in History for Racial Minorities

Dennis Prager   

At the City College of New York in the late 1930s, my father, an Orthodox Jew, wrote his senior class thesis on anti-Semitism in America.

He delineated common realities of the era, such as Jews’ admission to law firms, country clubs and colleges being denied or restricted, and various other manifestations of popular and institutional anti-Semitism.

Yet he taught his two sons—my older brother and me—to believe that we, as Americans, were the luckiest Jews in Jewish history.

With the obvious exception of Jews living in Israel, he was right. I can state this with some authority, having written a book on anti-Semitism and taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College.

Despite the existence of anti-Semites and anti-Semitism in America, American Jews are indeed among the luckiest Jews in Jewish history. Even with the re-establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel, many more Israeli Jews have moved to America than American Jews have moved to Israel.

This is not a reflection on Israel, which is a country with a high quality of life that is an unparalleled blessing in Jewish life; rather, it is a reflection on America and how good it is for Jews.

Likewise, despite the existence of racists and racism in America, black Americans are among the luckiest blacks in the world. A distinguished black journalist, Keith Richburg of the Washington Post, fully acknowledged the horror and cruelties of slavery. Nevertheless, he thanked God his ancestors made it possible for him to be born and live in America, not Africa.

After covering Africa for the Washington Post, Richburg put it this way in his newspaper: “Let me drop the charade and put it as simply as I can: There but for the grace of God go I.”

Somewhere, sometime, maybe 400 years ago, an ancestor of mine whose name I’ll never know was shackled in leg irons, kept in a dark pit … and then put with thousands of other Africans into the crowded, filthy cargo hold of a ship for the long and treacherous journey across the Atlantic. Many of them died along the way, of disease, of hunger. But my ancestor survived … He was ripped away from his country and his family, forced into slavery somewhere in the Caribbean.

Then one of his descendants somehow made it up to South Carolina, and one of those descendants, my father, made it to Detroit during the Second World War, and there I was born, 36 years ago. And if that original ancestor hadn’t been forced to make that horrific voyage, I would not have been standing there that day on the Rusumo Falls bridge, a journalist—a mere spectator—watching the bodies glide past me like river logs.

… And so I thank God my ancestor made that voyage. … I empathize with Africa’s pain. I recoil in horror at the mindless waste of human life, and human potential. I salute the gallantry and dignity and sheer perseverance of the Africans. But most of all, I feel secretly glad that my ancestor made it out—because, now, I am not one of them.

That is why millions of Africans prefer to live in America than anywhere else. That is why more than 2 million Africans immigrated to the United States in the recent past (compared with the 388,000 who came as slaves).

Unlike the many Americans—black and white—who believe the leftist libel about America oppressing blacks and all other nonwhites, the millions of Africans who want to come to America know how lucky they would be to be a black in America, as do the millions who already live here. They know they are, or would be, among the luckiest blacks in the world.

And what about Latin Americans? Like American Jews and American blacks, they are among the luckiest Latinos in the world. How could they or anyone else deny this given the fact that tens of millions of Latin Americans left their families, friends, culture, language, and very homes to live in America? And given the fact that tens of millions more ache to do the same?

What kind of lie must a person embrace to flee to a peaceful, prosperous country whose people treat him generously and beautifully and not think he is lucky to live there?

And, finally, there are the many white Americans—people born and raised in America, many of whose ancestors also fled war, poverty, and oppression in Europe—who not only deny how lucky they are to live in America but also vilify the founders of America who made their blessed life possible. Their attitude transcends mere lying; it enters the realm of pathology.

SOURCE


*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

***************************

No comments: