Last week, more than 13,000 pro-Israel activists gathered in Washington, D.C. for the largest AIPAC Policy Conference in history.
This year's conference featured President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and more than two-thirds of Congress as honored guests. Delegates from all 50 states also participated in a record 531 lobbying appointments on Capitol Hill.
While much was achieved during our three days in Washington, there is still much work to be done, and that is why I am writing to ask for your assistance.
Your contribution today will ensure we are able to be effective in our work with Congress during these dangerous and difficult times.
Please also watch your email in the coming weeks for more action alerts when your help will be needed to contact Congress in support of vital legislation that strengthens America and Israel.
Thank you in advance for your help and support.
Sincerely,
Jonathan E. Missner
Director of National Affairs and Development
"Liberty is a word which, according as it is used, comprehends the most good and the most evil of any in the world. Justly understood it is sacred next to those which we appropriate in divine adoration; but in the mouths of some it means anything, which enervate a necessary government; excite a jealousy of the rulers who are our own choice, and keep society in confusion for want of a power sufficiently concentered to promote good." --Oliver Ellsworth
Essential Liberty
The Obama approach to the Constitution
"[F]or the past week America has watched the media elite and some in Washington bend over backward to turn attention away from an issue that is fundamental to the future of this country: Obamacare's attack on individual liberty. ... It all stems from a decision by the Obama Administration to mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, provide health care coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and contraception. ... Some have attempted to make this a debate about other issues, but despite their efforts, the core complaint about this anti-conscience mandate remains: The President's policy is an unprecedented attack on all Americans' rights as protected by the First Amendment. ... No matter the direction the debate has taken, the deeply flawed policy remains, as does the opposition. Fortunately, Americans are not powerless to take action against this continuing encroachment on liberty. To begin with, Congress can and should take action now to stand in opposition to this anti-conscience mandate and ensure that the liberties guaranteed under the First Amendment remain intact. As Obamacare's two-year anniversary approaches, we've already seen two monumental reasons it must be repealed: the individual mandate and the anti-conscience mandate. But these are by no means the last of Obamacare's attacks on Americans' liberty." --Heritage Foundation's Mike Brownfield
"Sandra Fluke [is] ... really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP 'war on women.' I'm sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment -- because it's the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs. We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don't need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight. At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation's Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn't be 'attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.' After inserting himself into the fray and dragging [his daughters] Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he 'didn't want to get into the business of arbitrating' language and civility. Too late, pal. ... He's leading by example. So no, we won't get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence." --columnist Michelle Malkin
The Gipper
"Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price." --Ronald Reagan
Government
"The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 2011 manufacturing output grew by 11 percent, to nearly $5 trillion. Were our manufacturing sector considered a nation with its own gross domestic product, it would be the world's fourth-richest economy. Manufacturing productivity has doubled since 1987, and manufacturing output has risen by one-half. However, over the past two decades, manufacturing employment has fallen about 25 percent. For some people, that means our manufacturing sector is sick. ... For the most part, rising worker productivity and advances in technology are the primary causes of reduced employment and higher output in the manufacturing, agriculture and telecommunications industries. My question is whether Congress should outlaw these productivity gains in the name of job creation. It would be easy. Just get rid of those John Deere harvesting machines that do in a day what used to take a thousand men a week, outlaw the robots and automation that eliminated many manufacturing jobs and bring back manually operated PBX telephone switchboards. By the way, if technological advances had not eliminated millions of jobs, where in the world would we have gotten the workers to produce all those goods and services that we now enjoy that weren't even thought of decades ago? The bottom line is that the health of an industry is measured by its output, not by the number of people it employs." --economist Walter E. Williams
Opinion in Brief
"Members of the Obama administration have been pointing out how hard it would be to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, now that they have been built deep underground and dispersed. That would have been something to consider during the time when President Obama was taking leisurely and half-hearted measures to create the appearance of trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program, while vigorously warning Israel not to take military action. Time was never on our side. The risks go up exponentially the longer we wait. ... Nor should we assume that we can remain safe by throwing Israel to the wolves, once the election is over, as might well happen if Obama is re-elected and no longer has any political reasons to pretend to be Israel's friend. That kind of cynical miscalculation was made by France back in 1938, when it threw its ally, Czechoslovakia, to the wolves by refusing to defend it against Hitler's demands, despite the mutual defense treaty between the two countries. Less than two years later, Hitler's armies were invading France -- using, among other things, tanks manufactured in Czechoslovakia. This was just one of the expedient miscalculations that helped bring on the bloodiest and most destructive war the world has ever known. Dare we repeat such miscalculations in a nuclear age?" --economist Thomas Sowell
For the Record
"When the people of Iran rose up following obviously rigged elections in June, 2009, Mr. Obama declined to offer any support for the Green Revolution in the streets. Instead, green turned to red -- the red bloodstains on the cobblestones as the mullahs' hired guns shot down pro-democracy demonstrators. Mr. Obama has allowed Ahmadinejad, Iran's putative head of state, to come to America to address the UN General Assembly and to deliver his rants against his neighbor, Israel. Ahmadinejad was further allowed to disport himself at Columbia University. All the while, Ahmadinejad had two American hikers locked up on trumped up charges. The Obama administration betrayed our new allies in Eastern Europe -- Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic -- by ditching our anti-ballistic missile plans. For what purpose? To gain Russia's cooperation in dealing with Iran. Did we get it? Actually, no. Russia is busily pulling the teeth of UN resolutions dealing with Iran and Iran's puppet state, Syria. ... Now, President Obama assures Israel he 'has their back.' Well, thanks to President Obama, Israel's back is to the wall. ... So, are Mr. Obama's words of assurance to Israel something substantial? Or are they, in Hillary's words, just words?" --columnist Ken Blackwell
There is no time to waste. Now is the time to move full steam ahead. Press them hard until the deed is done. Promote the defeat of Obama and his Socialist regime in 2012 with the help of these best-selling shirts, stickers, posters and more.
Reader Comments
"Why in the world would any Republican or conservative in their right mind want a brokered convention? How much time does that give the candidate to go up against Obama -- six weeks at best? I believe that Mitt Romney is our best bet and he should be paired on a ticket with a young and articulate conservative. Mark Alexander is correct in his assertion that we will self-destruct if the current internal strife continues, and the consequence WILL be the election of Obama. And the consequence of that would be...." --Lady Liberty
"I applaud Mark Alexander's column, 'The Politics of Self Destruction,' for boldly exposing how we, as Republicans, can be our own worst enemies. While most of the reader comments supported that thesis, some demonstrated it. Alexander mentioned a couple of vice presidential prospects, including Marco Rubio, and some readers objected, saying that Rubio is no more eligible than Obama. As both an advocate of our Constitution and an attorney specializing in immigration, I can attest to the fact that Rubio most certainly would qualify under the plain language of our Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment, as a 'natural born citizen.' Further, there is no legal comparison between the controversy about Obama's citizenship which questions where he was born (unfounded in my opinion), and Rubio's citizenship based on the legal status of his parents. The latter, in fact, did have legal status at the time of Rubio's birth. Finally, as a Florida citizen, let me just say that I do not think Marco Rubio would agree to be on a presidential ticket with Mitt Romney, but that is another discussion." --From the Sunshine State
Alexander's Reply: As noted in reply to the first objection to Rubio, for the record, Marco Antonio Rubio was born May 28, 1971, in Miami, Florida. His parents were resident aliens at the time of his birth, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens. You may correctly assume that, because Rubio's parents were in the United States legally and thus, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," he does qualify as a natural born citizen while under the same clause, the children of illegal aliens are most decidedly not "natural born citizen of the United States." If you do not understand this assertion, read on.
Regarding "birthright citizenship," let me offer a few unadulterated facts. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as ratified in 1789, states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
By all accepted definitions of citizenship at the time, Marco Rubio is a "natural born citizen," as were many of our ancestral Founders.
After the War Between the States, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed to ensure that slaves born in the U.S., and legally subject to its jurisdiction, had the same rights of citizenship as all Americans. It stated, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
Concerned about the integrity of the Civil Rights Act given the Supreme Court's decision a decade earlier in Dred Scott v. Sandford denying citizenship to blacks, and that some future Congress would reverse this legislation, the 14th Amendment was proposed to ensure rights of citizenship. In the plain language of its authors, those who are born to parents legally in the U.S., whose parents have no allegiance to a foreign power (as diplomats), are thus, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and have claim to birthright citizenship. (This would clearly exclude those born to illegal aliens.)
By the constructionist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Marco Rubio is, indeed, a "natural born citizen."
The Rule of Law as outlined by the 14th Amendment stood until 1982 when it was adulterated by judicial activists who concluded in Plyler v. Doe, that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." That opened the floodgates for "anchor babies," a gate that should be closed -- but that would require a judiciary that abides by its oath to uphold the Rule of Law.
Thus, as adulterated, not only is Marco Rubio a "natural born citizen," but so is everyone else born in the U.S., regardless of whether their parents were here legally or illegally. However, there is no comparison between the questions of Obama's citizenship and that of Marco Rubio, which seems to have inspired some reader comments. The legitimate questions about Obama's citizenship are based on where he was actually born -- as posited by some who argue he was not born in the United States. (I would note that enormous political capital has been thrown down this rathole for the last four years, much to the detriment of the campaign to defeat Obama.)
Now, for those so predisposed, you may resume the effort to self-destruct, but understand that effort is worth more to Obama's re-election than any ad share he can buy.
"In response to Friday's Digest about Sandra Fluke and the contraception issue, Insurance, including health insurance, is designed as a safety net so that a family, individual or organization won't suffer financial devastation in the case of an unforeseen event, such as illness, injury or other medical malady. The coverage generally pays for treatment associated with the condition, as long as such coverage is deemed appropriate by the medical community. Please tell me, for what medical malady would contraception provide treatment?" --Steve
The Last Word
"At times, I find myself wondering if, after a thousand postings, I will eventually run out of things to carp, whine and scream about. I should only be so lucky, for it would mean that liberalism had finally all but vanished from our nation's capital, and the likes of Barack Obama, Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Patty Murray, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy, had all been returned to the various zoos from which they'd been on loan. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I would acknowledge that there are a fair number of naïve bumpkins in both parties. Although they are far more numerous in the voting blocs of Democrats, even in the GOP there are those I refer to as Utopians. Whereas on the Left, such lunkheads tend to think that if only a thousand more laws are enacted, we will achieve Nirvana; on the Right are those who believe there is an ideal presidential candidate who will somehow combine the best elements of George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Anything short of that and they threaten to stay home and sulk on Election Day, even if the alternative is to allow an international disaster like Obama to be re-elected." --columnist Burt Prelutsky
President Obama is coming after AFP. Instead of addressing the massive problems facing America’s future, President Obama is focusing on attacking and discrediting his opponents. And, once again, AFP is Public Enemy #1. First, his reelection campaign dedicated their first TV ad of 2012 to attacking AFP—because we exposed the truth about his Solyndra scam that channeled over $500 million taxpayer dollars to one of his donors’ failing green energy company. And now, President Obama’s campaign started circulating an online petition to demand that AFP release private personal information about our activists and donors. Londa, you know these baseless, desperate attacks are typical from President Obama’s shameless attack machine—but what’s worse is that these attacks are simply not true. On the road each year, I get to meet thousands of people. And let me tell you—I’ve never seen anyone but solid, patriotic Americans at an AFP rally, no matter what Obama and his allies want you to think. Instead, I get to meet everyday folks like you, your neighbors, and your friends—hard-working, middle-class Americans who are scared to death about President Obama’s dangerous tax and spend policies, and what they’re doing to our nation. And, frankly, you and I know we need to change course before it’s too late.Londa, with over 90,000 individual donors, AFP is truly dependent on the generosity of activists like you. And we simply can’t continue to win more critical policy fights without your help. That’s why I’m asking you today to pitch in and help us show President Obama and his liberal allies just how deep nationwide support for AFP—and for economic freedom—really goes. Please click here to contribute just $5 or $10—or whatever you can afford right now—to help us continue to win the fight against President Obama’s disastrous policy agenda for America. Londa, thank you for everything you’ve helped us do over the last three years. I know that, at the end of the day, we’ll win the fight for the future of America—and celebrate the permanent return of economic freedom. Sincerely, Tim Phillips, President
Americans for Prosperity P.S. With President Obama’s attack machine in full swing, we need to set the record straight—and show him just how much Americans care about bringing prosperity back to our nation. Click here to contribute $5 or $10 to AFP to help us fight back against Obama’s politics-as-usual—and restore economic freedom to our nation.
Dear Londa,
You and I know that since the days of Woodrow Wilson, the progressive movement has been on the march to incrementally take over our private lives with public programs.
And this March, progressives across America are celebrating the two year anniversary of ObamaCare as proof that this radical health care takeover will now be permanent.
But there remains hope that we can End ObamaCare Now.
The Supreme Court is preparing to decide the fate of ObamaCare and we’re sending thousands of signatures to the Court with one clear voice: End ObamaCare Now.
Thousands of Americans have signed already…opposing Obama’s individual mandate…his health care rationing board…and the billions in new spending hidden in ObamaCare.
Celebrate the two year anniversary of ObamaCare by committing to do everything you can to help repeal this radical law. Now is the time to act. Sign our petition to End ObamaCare Now.
We’ve taken ObamaCare straight to the Supreme Court, filing a legal brief through our Constitution Defense Fund and rallying our 1.5 million members—members like you—to End ObamaCare Now!
If you want to restore freedom in America's health care system, challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare is critical and we’re leading that fight. Urge the Supreme Court to respect individual liberty and reject the individual mandate by signing our petition to End ObamaCare Now!
If we are going to beat back the progressive agenda…if we are going to stem the rising tide of Big Government…we must End ObamaCare Now. Sign the petition right now.
Thank you.
In Liberty,
And it seems like that philosophical belief in individualism and limited government sometimes has an impact in the polling booth. According to a recent study, Obamacare was poison for Democrats in 2010.
Here’s an excerpt from a report in The Hill. Voting for President Obama’s healthcare reform law cost Democratic incumbents 5.8 percentage points of support at the polls in 2010, according to a new study in the journal American Politics Research. The study helps explain why Democrats lost 66 House seats, significantly more than the median academic forecast of 44 to 45 seats, study co-author Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College writes on his blog. Democrats in the lead-up to the elections took a number of tough votes — notably on the Wall Street bailout, the stimulus and cap-and-trade — but none was as unpopular as their support for the healthcare reform law. “We show that the roll-call effect on vote share was driven by healthcare reform. Democratic incumbents who voted yes performed significantly worse than those who did not,” Nyhan writes. “We then provide simulation evidence suggesting that Democrats would win approximately 25 more seats if those in competitive districts had voted no, which accounts for the gap between the academic forecasts and the observed outcomes.”
As with any statistical study, you should take the results with a big grain of salt. That caveat aside, the conclusions of the study seem quite plausible. And since I’m not a fan of Obamacare and think the law will be much more costly than advertised, I’m not shedding any tears for politicians who lost their jobs after voting for the new entitlement.
But the 2010 election may have been a Pyrrhic victory – a short-run victory that paves the way for long-run defeat.
I think the left made a clever calculation that losses in the last cycle would be an acceptable price to get more people dependent on the federal government. And once people have to rely on government for something like healthcare, they are more likely to vote for the party that promises to make government bigger.
One of the most-viewed posts on this blog is the set of cartoons drawn by a former Cato intern, one showing how the welfare state begins and the other showing how it ends.
This is why Obamacare – and the rest of the entitlement state – is so worrisome. If more and more Americans decide to ride in the wagon of government dependency, it will be less and less likely that those people will vote for candidates who want to restrain government.
Europe is a good example. The supposedly “conservative” leaders of major nations such as Spain, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are a bunch of big-government statists.
That being said, I’m not a complete pessimist. The Medicaid and Medicare reforms in last year’s Ryan budget would largely solve the problem, especially since any Obamacare subsidies presumably could be eliminated as part of such reforms.
I’m just not holding my breath that we’ll get real entitlement reform in the next four years.
Continuing my tradition of periodically sharing the good political jokes from the late-night talk show hosts (you can enjoy previous editions by clicking here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), you’ll find below the latest ones that passed the got-me-to-laugh test.
Jay Leno
While visiting a GM plant President Obama pledged to buy a Chevy Volt after his presidency ends in five years. Today Mitt Romney said, “Make it one year and I’ll buy it for you.”
I think Romney’s a good man but he just doesn’t inspire people. Even his new campaign slogan: “I guess you’re stuck with me.”
Not a good day for Rick Santorum. I haven’t seen him this depressed since they invented the birth control pill.
It’s leap day tomorrow. This is God’s way of punishing us by making the election year even longer.
President Obama talked about rising gas prices today. He focused on the positive things his administration has done when it comes to energy prices. So, in other words, it was the shortest speech he’s ever given.
President Obama is starting to get a little overconfident. In an interview with Univision radio, he said, “My presidency isn’t over yet, and I’ve still got five more years.” Even his predictions are over budget.
I saw the worst reality show last night. Have you seen this one? It’s called “The Republican Debate.”
Rick Santorum is claiming that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have teamed up against him. Which is kind of ironic — that Santorum can be brought down by two men forming a civil union.
Santorum says that Satan has his sights set on the United States of America. And today Satan said he tries to avoid politics because it makes him feel dirty.
Italian police seized $6 trillion worth of fake, worthless U.S. bonds. Let that be a lesson. If you want to try and sell worthless financial instruments, you’d better be Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. That’s the only way you’re going to get away with it.
David Letterman
It’s tax time. I switched to a new tax guy and I think he’s fantastic. He wants me to establish my full-time residence in Syria.
Every time I drive up to my new tax guy’s office, he says the same thing. “You weren’t tailed, were you?”
Today is the 100th anniversary of the Oreo cookie. For New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, it’s a holy day.
Conan
A new study found that government employees are the happiest workers. The study was not conducted at the DMV.
It’s being reported that Snooki is pregnant. When Rick Santorum heard the news, he immediately came out in favor of birth control.
Mitt Romney has accused Rick Santorum of saying outrageous things just so Santorum can appeal to the most extreme voters. Santorum denied this and said, “That’s exactly the kind of misrepresentation I’d expect from gay abortion doctor Mitt Romney.”
As of today, Rick Santorum will be assigned Secret Service agents. This is the first time Santorum has agreed to use any kind of protection.
Jimmy Kimmel
Kid Rock gave Mitt Romney an endorsement. He also endorsed porn, Jack Daniels, and hepatitis C.
Jimmy Fallon
Mitt Romney accused the other GOP candidates of pandering to voters to get support. Romney was like, “I would never pander to voters. I mean, unless you guys want me to.”
Craig Ferguson
President Obama is trying to come up with a new campaign slogan that would replace “hope and change.” He’s thinking of going with “I am not Mitt Romney.”
There are rumors that Mitt Romney will ask Ron Paul to be his running mate. He was originally going to reach out to Rick Santorum. But Rick’s not crazy about other dudes reaching out for him.
Everyone throws beads on Mardi Gras. The beads are paid for by local businessmen who ride on elaborate floats and toss little trinkets to the desperate masses in the streets. Which is also Mitt Romney’s economic plan.
People should stop believing bizarre stories about U.S. presidents. George Washington did not have wooden teeth. Abe Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address on an envelope. And President Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. It was Tanzania.
Obama was going to be born in Kenya but it wasn’t socialist enough.
I can’t resist one parting shot, regarding the Conan joke about happy government workers. Of course they’re happy, since their compensation is twice as high as people in the productive sector of the economy.
John 15:1-2
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. {2} Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
In John 15:1-2 the Lord Jesus taught about fruit bearing. Christ Himself is the true vine, and we are His branches. He said "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit". The idea is that every Christian should be in such close touch with Christ that, as the sap comes from the vine into the branch with life-giving, fruit-bearing power, so the Holy Spirit may flow from Christ through us, making us fruit bearing Christians.
II/ THE SECRET OF FRUITFULNESS:
John 15:3-7
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. {4} Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. {5} I am the vine, ye the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. {6} If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast into the fire, and they are burned. {7} If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Again He said, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches; He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing". There is no way to win souls except by abiding in Christ, being in touch with Him, knowing His will, feeling His heartbeat, being wholly committed to His will and work!
Remember that the Lord Jesus wants souls saved. That is what He died for. That is what the Great Commission means. Christ came to "seek and to save that which was lost" again, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners". If I abide in Christ, my aim, my purpose, my burden, my business, my work, will be the same as His! And my fruit will be the fruit He wants. The fruit of a Christian is another Christian. If you are not a witness, then the Bible makes it clear that you do not abide in Christ. Your heart is not at one with His heart. Whatever your activity, whatever your reputation, however sanctimonious you feel, and however much of a Pharisee you are in your life, you do not abide in Christ, if you do not witness.
A. First consider what Vine you are tapped into:
Ask yourself, How many things do I attach myself to for my well-being? Some people think their vine is their Individual Retirement Account, College degrees popularity, business connections, possessions, or social relationships. Some people think the church is their vine. They attach themselves to a system of religion. But our vine should be Jesus Christ. Attending a church is not necessarily evidence of a vine-branch relationship. In fact, it can be a parasitic relationship. Sometimes people are like parasites because they attend Church only for what it will do for them. If the Church quits doing for them they quit. Not even a Sunday School Class or a Bible-study group or a Church can be a substitute for Jesus Christ as your sustenance for living.
B. Second consider the Branches:
The branches tapped into the true vine grow rapidly. They must be tended, carefully, which requires drastic pruning on a regular basis. To have a fruitful vine, the vinedresser(The Father) must cut off the fruitless shoots and other things that gather on the fruit-bearing branches that tend to sap the strength of the vine. There are two kinds of branches:
1. The Professing Branches: "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away" A fruitless branch cannot represent a Christian. Jesus said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit .. Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them" Math 7:16-17,20. In verse 2 "in me" sounds like the people who don’t bear fruit are Christians. But these are those who are superficially attached(parasites). In Rom 11:20 Paul pictured Israel as an olive tree However, some of the branches of that tree weren’t saved. Verse 20 says "Because of unbelief they were broken off". In I John 2:19 John says "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us"
2. The Possessing Branches: "Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit". Every believer in Christ gets purged because "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" Heb 12:6 If you could look at your problems as a divine procedure for becoming more fruitful, you might be tempted to pray for trouble! The Greek word translated "purgeth" (kathairo) means "to clean". Extrabiblical Greek literature uses the word to refer to cleansing grain(separating it from the waste material). What instrument does God use to purge us? Jesus said "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you". Have you ever noticed how much more sensitive you are to the Word of God when you’re in trouble? Trouble opens our eyes to receive the divine "purging" performed by the Word.
C. Third, consider the meaning of Abiding:
The word "Abide" simply means "to remain". The mark of a Christian is that He or She remains (or lasts). Not by their own strength because it would mean that their salvation was based on their ability to "hang in there". Rather, remaining in Christ is evidence that a person is saved. It is like the good soil, the seed remained in the ground and grew, it was not plucked out by the birds, or choked by the thorns, or killed by the heat of the day. Abiding means Lasting. It means keeping the faith. It means being faithful. It means staying true. It means remaining in Christ. The wonderful part of it is that Jesus said "Abide in me, and I will abide(remain) in you".
III/ THE MARKS OF A TRUE DISCIPLE
John 15:8-11
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. {9} As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. {10} If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. {11} These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and your joy might be full.
IV/ THE CALL TO FRUITFULNESS
John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
1. Fruit is produced in all periods of life. - Psalms 92:13-14
"Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish
in the courts of our God. {14} They shall still bring forth
fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;"
2. Spiritual Fruit should be perennial.(lasting) Ezekiel 47:12
"And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on
that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not
fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall
bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their
waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof
shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine."
3. There are many varieties. - Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, {23} Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
4. It will grow only upon good ground - Matthew 13:8
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
5. Spiritual fruit is without defect - Ephesians 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
6. It is the product of heavenly wisdom. James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
On a scale of 1 to 5, how fruitful would you say your life is?
What do you need to do to abide more closely in Christ?
While news yesterday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that unemployment remained unchanged and that 227,000 jobs were created in February shows that the Obama-induced stimulus slide in the economy has slowed, it also contains some significant bad news for the president.
As the labor participation rates edged back up, the number of people without jobs also edged up a bit too from 12.758 million to 12.806 in the last month. And while the 227,000 jobs created for January is better than less-than-200,000 jobs that we have come to expect, much of the gain is in temporary employment, signaling perhaps, at best a bottom for labor.
But what it’s not signaling most certainly is a robust recovery.
As our own Mike Shedlock points out, employment in 2012 is roughly the same as it was back in 2001. In essence, Obama has compressed a lost decade into just three years. Additionally, the BLS already is making significant downward revisions to employment for new business estimates they made in the January report via the birth/death model and other seasonal adjustments , according to Shedlock.
And the hanky-pankery isn't just confined to birth/death numbers. As John Crudele of the New York Post reported early this week:
Take, just as a single example, Labor’s report in early February. It showed that 243,000 new jobs were created in January. The only problem was that the number wasn’t true. The pure, undoctored, not seasonally adjusted figure showed there was really a loss of 2.689 million jobs. There is always a loss of jobs after the Christmas season. And any professional in the financial industry who doesn’t know that needs to get into another line of work. As I’ve reported before, the 2.689 million job loss turned into a gain of 243,000 only because Labor’s seasonal adjustment programs expected the job losses to be bigger. The warm winter weather probably kept some people from being put out of work, and this threw off Washington’s calculations. Now here’s another brief reminder: We’ve been here before with the Obama economy- like last year- and it won’t take much- think rising gas prices, Israeli air strike- for the economy to go back into the tank. So don’t count me as one of the people who thinks the employment report is Obama’s friend. In part that’s because Obama jettisoned his business-friendly chief-of-staff, Bill Daley, in favor of the more radical, whacko-wing of the White House who is determined to wage a class warfare campaign around spending a ton more money. And the longer economic conditions remain stable, yet, essentially weak, the more likely it is that Americans are going to reject Obama’s massive spending programs and class warfare rhetoric, without which, he’d have an administration bereft of any ideas at all. Obama: Pass MY Jobs Bill! It wasn’t too long ago that the employment crisis was so grave that Chicago’s very own Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was suggesting the president suspend the Constitution. Previously Governor Bev Perdue (Democrat) was suggesting that we suspend elections to address employment, thereby ensuring that she wouldn’t get to run for reelection this year. Both were foolish arguments back then and both appear even stupider in light of events. The biggest crisis that both progressives were concerned with wasn’t jobs; it’s the crisis created by six years of failed policies- the possibility of failed elections.
And that’s about the size of it for Obama too.
It’s wasn’t too long ago that the president was touring the country foolishly demanding that Congress pass his pork-spending bill he called “My Jobs Bill 2.0” before letting Congress even read it. “Pass my jobs bill now,” said the president before he had even delivered a copy of it to Congress- or wrote it.
“[I]f you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill," said Obama as he kicked off the desperation reelection tour back in September.
But hey, guess what?
The economy has stopped sliding backward and has added jobs since, primarily because a Republican-controlled Congress has gotten the president to stop screwing around with the economy. Congress has gotten tough with out-of-control regulations like the MACT Act and Dodd-Frank and the economy has started to its proper job.
In the meantime, Obama has somehow misplaced the campaign rhetoric supporting “My Jobs Bill” along with “My Foolish Budget” and “My Invisible Energy Policy.”
Instead he’s taken to campaigning about income inequality and tax increases.
And I’ll take my chances on those arguments at time when people would be happy to have any rising income, any lower spending and any affordable energy no matter the form.
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.
John Ransom
John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.
In a previous column, I took the President to task for his repeated use, most recently in his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, of the phrase “my brother’s keeper” in support of his fiscal policies. That column raised quite an angry stir.
I should not have been surprised by this. The notion of keeper-hood is at the heart of the American left. The European left, at least since the time of the French Revolution, has waged open war on religious institutions and ideas.
But in the United States, where respect for the Bible remains high, the left more often attempts to appropriate religious language, misquoting it in support of statist solutions.
When someone like me points out that the Bible, in fact, does not say, “We are our brother’s keeper,” but instead quotes the first murderer (and soon to be first political ruler) as saying “Am I my brother’s keeper?” such a revelation threatens the whole enterprise in religious subterfuge, and it has to be punished.
Here are the objections that have been raised to my article, and my answers:
Some, for example fellow Forbes contributor Victoria Pynchon, said that the President was not quoting the Bible. Others suggested that he was simply quoting poetry. It is true that the president did quote poetry, for example John Donne’s statement that “no man is an island”, but I was referring to this other quote, “We are our brother’s keeper.” That is clearly an attempt to quote the Bible. The President’s remarks were given at a prayer breakfast, not at a conference of the Metaphysical Poets Appreciation Society.
Furthermore, the paragraph in which he made the brother’s keeper remark was preceded by the President saying that he prayed daily, that he believed his faith was not just part of his personal life but belonged in the formation of public policy, and by several attempts by the President to quote the Bible in support of his progressive political program, particularly that of raising taxes on the rich in order to fund various transfer payments. Of course he was using the Bible to support his politics: the only real question is whether he was using it properly.
Some who suggested that the President was not quoting the Bible nevertheless claimed that, if he had been, he would have been using it correctly and that the Bible does indeed teach that we are our brother’s keeper. They claim that when Cain asks if he is his brother’s keeper, God says that indeed he is. The problem is that God says no such thing. In fact, what is so conspicuous about the story of Cain and Abel is how often the Bible refers to Abel as Cain’s brother. It’s so frequent as to sound almost stilted:
“Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” And the LORD said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”
(Genesis 4:8-11 ESV)
The Bible uses the word ach, brother, six times in four verses. The only person who says ‘keeper’ (in Hebrew shmr) is Cain. In fact, God pointedly uses the word brother twice in direct conversation with Cain after Cain uses the word keeper. It seems clear that this passage is contrasting two views of the ethics of social relations; one is a keeper/kept relationship and the other is a brother/brother ethic.
Treating the Torah as a literary unit sheds much light on this: throughout the rest of the Torah Israelites are reminded that God is their shmr, their Keeper, their Shepherd. In contrast, the law frequently makes reference to the moral and legal obligations that Israelites have towards one another with the phrase ‘your brother’. Even the king is referred to this way; Israel is instructed to choose as king “one from among your bretheren”. Even the king is a brother, not a keeper.
Some complained about my translation skills. Following Leon Kass, who has taught the book of Genesis for over two decades, I suggested that the word ‘keeper’ might be interpreted as ‘shepherd.’ Some of my critics denied that the word could be translated that way. This is flat wrong: for example, Hosea 12:12 says that the patriarch Jacob was a ‘shmr of sheep’, so ‘keeper’ can sometimes mean ‘shepherd.’
I’m told that in modern Hebrew, a Shomer is a variant of a legal guardian: a keeper, for example, of a child until the time when he or she can fully exercise control of inherited wealth. In Biblical Hebrew a shmr can be a guardian at the city wall. I stand by my decision to interpret a shmr as a shepherd in the context of the story of Cain and Abel.
Abel, after all, was a herdsman, so the pun makes sense: Cain is sarcastically saying that he is not a shepherd of the shepherd. Neither a legal guardian not an armed guard translation would make sense in context: there was no property to be held in trust for Abel, and there were no walled cities to guard.
In fact, after his fratricide, Cain goes on to found the world’s first city and first political entity. Kass says that this story illustrates the close relationship between violence and politics. I think he is right. And I think this story provides little Biblical comfort for those who would twist the text in order to argue for expansive state power.
The government can only be our shepherd if we are its sheep, or our guardian if we are its children. One can have a legitimate argument about whether a shepherd/nanny government is the right form for us at this time.
But one cannot reasonably enlist the Torah, and most especially not the story of Cain and Abel, on the side of the Shepherd State without doing violence to the meaning of the text.
56 Senators voted in favor of a plan yesterday that would allow the Keystone pipeline to go forward by cancelling the bureaucratic roadblocks put up by the Obama administration/world-wide bus tour.
“The 56-42 vote came after President Barack Obama called Democratic senators to lobby them to oppose the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast,” reports FoxNews.
“Even so, 11 Democrats sided with Republicans to sidestep Obama's rejection of the pipeline and allow the $7 billion project to go forward.”
Yet, despite the majority vote, Senate rules apparently require a 60-vote supermajority to create jobs in this country. And according to Democrat Party rules, any vote to create jobs also has to have a massive, wasteful, multi-trillion dollar appropriation attached to it. This rules out Keystone. With that in mind, it’s time for voters to begin to ask the most obvious question: What quid pro quo is Obama promising members of Congress, to stall the pipeline and the immediate, well-paying jobs that go along with it?
And only the congresstrons who were on the phone with Obama can really answer what Obama promised them in return for their votes.
Reports CNN: For their part, congressional Republicans blasted the president for twisting the arms of fellow Democrats. "By personally lobbying against the Keystone pipeline, it means the president of the United States is lobbying for sending North American energy to China and lobbying against American jobs," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a news conference. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Obama is "out of touch" on the issue. "At a moment when millions are out of work, gas prices are skyrocketing, and the Middle East is in turmoil, we've got a president who's up making phone calls trying to block a pipeline here at home," he said. "It's unbelievable."
So tell us, Mr & Mrs. Senator what the president offered you.
Instead of shipping jobs directly to U.S. by shipping oil through Keystone, the Democrats presumably prefer the new triangle-slavery route. Canada ships oil to China, China creates jobs, US imports dollars fromChina to pay for entitlement programs to support people who don’t have jobs here domestically.
There are many contrasts that the GOP can use to go after Obama on the economy.
None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.
The State Department gave preliminary approval to build the Keystone pipeline late last summer, saying that it posed no significant environmental risks. But like a lot of things with this administration, it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the left-wing was doing.
Instead of allowing the project to go through, along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs it would create, Obama sided with whack-job environmentalists who raised bogus fears that oil spills could pollute the aquifer that lies underneath its path.
Ok, he only apparently sided with them.
He actually did what Obama likes to do best when pandering to… whomever. He bravely told the rest of us that for right now he wouldn’t approve the pipeline, but he might change his mind. Oh, and if we try to rush him to make a decision, we’ll all be very, very sorry.
The Senate vote was an attempt by the GOP and 11 Democrats to show the rest us just how sorry Obama really is.
The pipeline could ultimately supply about a million barrels of Canadian oil to the US per day and 400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.
But instead, the president, who has been railing against Congress for not passing another expensive jobs bill, and talks about income equality like it’s the most pressing issue of the day, just killed 400,000 American jobs that would battle income inequality in the most productive sense by providing ordinary Americans with the opportunity to earn some income.
And despite everything the Obama administration has done to slow down domestic development of oil and gas resources, the oil and gas sector is one of the fastest growing jobs markets in a very anemic job market. While other sectors are shedding jobs, oil and gas is hot.
“The use of new drilling techniques to tap oil and gas in shale rocks far underground helped add 158,000 new oil and gas jobs over the past five years,” writes the Wall Street Journal “and economists think that it has created even more jobs in companies supplying the energy industry and in the broader services industry.”
“This is probably the biggest stimulus we have going,” Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research told the WSJ.
According to the Journal “$145 billion will be spent drilling and completing wells this year, up from $13 billion in 2000.”
While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.
4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.
We know that Obama has multiple motives for killing the pipeline.
We know for example that Obama’s imperiled presidency rides on his ability, first, to rally his own base, since no one else supports him. That means pandering to the enviro-whackos in the White House and beyond.
We know too that Obama majority shareholder Warren Buffett stands to benefit from any agreement to scuttle the pipeline because Buffett’s railroad will end up carting any Canadian heavy if Canada decides to sell oil to US refineries despite the Keystone ban.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline route.
Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.
Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, “is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels,” which is the holy grail of the left.
Full scale development of tar sands can only be stopped by taxing oil out of existence, like was tried with cap and trade. Cape and trade was never about trying to cool the earth. It was about giving "green" technologies a competitive advantage over fossil fuels that free markets won't concede.
The Atlantic echoes the theme: The Keystone XL is merely on hold, and oil from all sorts of other "dirty" situations continues to flow into our gas tanks…. We need to stop fighting oil development project by project -- and instead focus on passing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (which could make the Keystone XL economically unviable).
And the New York Times goes further, stating: “Far more important to the nation’s energy and environmental future is the development of renewable and alternative energy sources. This is the winning case that Mr. Obama should make to voters in rejecting the Republicans’ craven indulgence of Big Oil.”
And since the New York Times wrote the Obama strategy memo disguised as the op-ed above, Obama’s been sticking to the script.
And offering Democrats lots of big carrots along the way. "Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.
John Ransom
John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.
I love the Lord and want to share who is God the Father, God the Son, & God the Holy Spirit.
I have my ordination as set forth by - The Church of Living Water School of Bible Studies. I believe the Bible and the Bible only. If the Bible doesn't say it, it isn't true.
Posts
