DEMINT: Donald Trump’s Fiscally Conservative Budgets

DEMINT: Donald Trump’s Fiscally Conservative Budgets

One of the most common misconceptions I hear about Donald Trump is that he is not a fiscal conservative.

Yes, everyone acknowledges he is the most successful pro-life president in American history. It cannot be seriously denied he is presiding over the widest and deepest economic expansion in memory. He’s leading a quiet revolution in regulatory reform. He’s ending what were once thought to be “forever wars” in the Middle East. He’s finally taken the stand on illegal immigration the American people have wanted for a generation. And he’s exposed the corruption of the Beltway Swamp like no president in our lifetime.

But on the issue of federal spending, President Trump’s critics on the Left and Right accuse him of being a budget-busting, big-government Republican. Trillion-dollar deficits speak for themselves, they say. And of course, the president has signed many appropriations bills I would have preferred he veto. He went along with bipartisan congressional leaders to bust the budget caps conservatives fought so hard to implement under President Obama.

And yet, every year, when the president has presented his budget proposals to Congress, they have contained more spending cuts than any president in history. They sought to achieve balance within 10-15 years. They outline streamlining reforms to bloated and dysfunctional programs. His chief budget advisers – Mick Mulvaney and Russell Vought – are probably the most fiscally conservative senior members of the Trump administration.

Trump is not an ideological libertarian; we can all agree on that. He never said he was. The budget deficit is understandably not a higher priority for him than, say, the economy, trade, immigration or rebuilding our military. On the other hand, politics – especially budget politics – is a team sport.

And where have most congressional Republicans been since the president took office in 2019? They have been griping about the same spending caps they celebrated when Barack Obama was in office. Last year, Republican Sen. Richard Shelby called Trump’s budget attempts to keep spending below caps “draconian.” They have been working with Democrats in the House and Senate to plus-up spending across the board. They did it in 2017 and 2018 when Republicans had unified control of Congress, and the spending has only accelerated since Democrats took over the House of Representatives last year.

The only way Congress ever restrains spending is when conservatives – in and out of government, on and off Capitol Hill – rally together to fight. The president’s budget and his veto pen are his biggest weapons. For three years, it has been congressional Democrats and Republicans, not the president, surrendering the fight on spending. Indeed, Congress continues to ignore the president’s fiscally responsible budgets, bust the caps and add to the national debt.

Just this week, the Senate Budget Committee – the one controlled by Republicans – announced that it was not even going to hold hearings on the president’s budget submission. Meanwhile, the House Budget Committee hearings, controlled by Democrats, has announced it won’t write their own budget but will surely engage in partisan attacks against the Administration’s proposals.

No president can pass a budget by himself. He can’t make Congress take it up, let alone support his reforms. Nor can he fight on every front all at once. Congressional Republicans have stood with the president on taxes, impeachment, and the Courts. But on spending, they have gone their own way, the way of the Swamp.

It’s an election year now, and Democrats would love nothing more than to trigger another government shutdown in the cynical confidence the media will blame the president. And Washington Republicans love trying to buy goodwill from voters with money borrowed from our grandkids. So this year’s spending totals may end up no better than the last three years.

But it’s not Donald Trump’s fault. And when – not if – he wins re-election in the fall, the second Trump Administration will be ready to fight, and win, on this issue too.

Jim DeMint (@JimDeMint) served South Carolina in the U.S. Senate from 2005-2013. He is now chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute, a nonprofit group advocating for limited government.

Can Government Money Save Private Education? By Edwin Benson

Can Government Money Save Private Education?

By Edwin Benson

A current controversy in the State of Florida calls into question some basic premises of the school choice movement. It shows once again that public money risks government control.

The central issue, described by Robert Pondiscio of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is whether schools that accept government money can exclude students who identify themselves as LGBT.

Origins of “School Choice”

The school choice movement began with the famous economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006). A favorite of the Reagan revolution, Dr. Friedman’s 1979 book Free to Choose, and the accompanying PBS series, brought him out of his classroom at the University of Chicago and into the national consciousness.

Unlike most economists of his generation, Dr. Friedman placed great faith in the power of the free market. The school choice movement took off when he applied free-market ideas to education.

The movement began as people experience serious doubts about public education. At the same time, private schools, including Catholic schools, enjoyed a superior academic reputation. However, many of these schools were closing because of a lack of money.

Dr. Friedman suggested that the money that the government spends on schools could be reallocated. Parents could use this money to send their children to any school that they wanted. The market would then decide which schools would stay open or be closed.

A Long Simmering Controversy

The idea attracted both adamant supporters and feverish detractors. Supporters, including many proponents of Catholic education, hail it as their salvation. Detractors see it as the death knell of public schools.

In between lay many who acknowledged that such a plan would help Catholic schools. However, they feared that it could lead to a level of government control that would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

The current controversy in Florida revives such concerns. The catalyst is Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program. It provides state tax credits for contributions to nonprofit scholarship-funding organizations (SFOs). The scholarships are then awarded to eligible children of low-income families.

The supporters of the program point out that the scholarship money never enters the public coffers. Therefore, some of the church-state issues that arise from other forms of school choice do not apply.

The Perils of Rejecting the Spirit of the Times

Enter the Orlando Sentinel. The paper claims that the state scholarship program causes “gay-friendly” companies to support schools that are opposed to the LGBT agenda. Sentinel reporters “reviewed documents of more than 1,000 private religious schools that take state scholarships and found 156 have policies that say gay and transgender students can be denied enrollment or expelled or that explain the school opposes their sexual orientation or gender identity on religious grounds.”

Like many states, Florida contains deep ideological divisions. Its three major population centers support liberal Democrats. The rest of the state, consisting of small towns and rural areas, tends to be more traditional.

Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits is the Florida scholarship program’s largest single donor. Based in Miami, it operates in forty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Canada. It places a heavy emphasis on being involved in charitable works in the communities in which it does business. It publishes a “Corporate Social Responsibility Report” that details their favored causes. Education is at the top of its list. Its nondiscrimination policy contains the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender and/or gender identity or expression.”

Southern Glazer’s responded to the Sentinel article “by forwarding a statement saying it opposed “discriminatory behavior, practices and policies against LGBTQ+ students in all public and private schools,” including those that receive scholarship money.

Similar statements came from other corporate donors to the scholarship fund. These included Wells Fargo, Fifth Third Bank, Geico, and Waste Management. They all issued statements indicating that the knowledge that some schools were opposed to the LGBT agenda might well affect future contributions.

Can Legislatures be Forced to Act?

According to the Sentinel, two current bills would forbid “discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity” in the schools that accept the scholarships. However, a similar bill was defeated last year.

Political setbacks have led the LGBT movement to adopt a new strategy. The Fordham Institute article claims that “What’s happening in Florida portends a new and divisive raising of the stakes in the battle over school choice that could echo beyond Florida. Having lost in the legislature and in the courts, a new playbook is being written before our eyes: Make ESAs [Education Savings Accounts] too hot for donors to touch.”

Such a situation puts state legislatures in a problematic position. These scholarships help thousands of students get a better education. The new strategy would provide cover for unprincipled legislators to claim that preserving the programs is more important than protecting the traditional values of the schools.

Is State Funding a Trap?

There is nothing inherently wrong with the state supporting schools run by the Church and religious institutions. However, such a course does have pitfalls. Catholic schools cannot allow themselves to become dependent on government funds. To do so is to place themselves in danger of having to choose between closing or violating Catholic moral law.

Under such circumstances, the temptation to render to Caesar the things that are God’s may prove all but irresistible.

The Impact That Religion Has on Education That Teachers Are Ignoring By John Horvat II

The Impact That Religion Has on Education That Teachers Are Ignoring

By John Horvat II

Education and religion are often seen to be incompatible.

There is an underlying notion inside the liberal education establishment that religious belief is backwards and contrary to enlightenment. Schools have long been viewed as gateways to a glorious secular and technological future, free of religious superstition.

After all, the purpose of education is to make children “career and college ready,” not to impart character or moral sentiments. Some educators go to the point of insinuating that the less religious influence upon the student, the better.

The educational establishment treats religion as if it is a deadly disease, not a blessing, for kids

Such convictions would be more convincing if they were based on facts. It would be good to see serious empirical studies that prove these prejudices against the influence of religion are justified. All too often, the assumptions are simply stated without proofs. The public is asked to accept them at face value.

In his recent book, “Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis,” sociologist Robert Putnam actually cites many such studies and the evidence is overwhelming. His conclusion is that religion has not only a good impact, but even a great effect upon the success of a child’s education.

“Compared to their unchurched peers,” Putnam writes, “youth who are involved in a religious organization take tougher courses, get higher grades and test scores, and are less likely to drop out of high school.”

Moreover, churchgoing youth have better relationships with their parents. They are more involved in sports and extracurricular activities. They are less likely to abuse alcohol and drugs that inhibit learning. That is to say, the moral formation influenced by religion provides the framework for students to flourish.

Even more surprising is the finding that religion is not the domain of the unenlightened lower classes of society as is often insinuated. In fact, students from affluent families are now much more likely to be involved in religion than those in poorer families. Religion is a major part of the mix that allows many of them to attain later success in life.

If that were not enough, students enlightened by religion tend to seek higher education. Putnam cites studies that show that a child whose parents regularly attend church is 40 to 50 percent more likely to go on for a college education than a similar child of parents who do not attend church.

Based on such evidence that clearly shows a positive impact, schools should at least recognize that religious involvement in the home helps the educational development of children.

The sad fact is that while religion is good for education, education is not good for religion. The educational establishment treats religion as if it is a deadly disease, not a blessing, upon the child.

The least reference to Christianity is increasingly expunged from the schools more thoroughly than from a Soviet classroom. A secular quarantine is imposed upon the school by taking away references to Christmas and other Christian holidays deemed poisonous to the child. At the same time, immoral or anti-religious material or programs freely circulate and are promoted. It is despite, not because of, educational policy that churchgoing students do better.

While religion tends to help get students into college, college tends to get religion out of students. It is a sad fact that many students find an atmosphere on campus which corrupts their morals and erodes their faith. Openly hostile professors attack and ridicule Christian principles and beliefs. It has almost become a rite of passage that many American students lose their faith at the university.

The welfare of the student should be a major concern for educators. All positive influences upon the child should be encouraged, not banished – especially if the influence is proven effective. In this sense, how much better education would be if it were at least not hostile to God and religion, and how much better it would be if education policy were to be based on facts, rather than prejudices.

As seen on theblaze.com

Related Articles

Our Kids: Why They Are in Trouble

A City Without a Soul By John Horvat II

A City Without a Soul

By John Horvat II

Near the bustling industrial city of Tieling in northeastern China, there is a brand new city some 6 miles down the road called Tieling New City. The place has everything going for it. Visitors will find excellent infrastructure, government offices, schools, shopping centers and apartment complexes. Land and labor costs are significantly lower than other areas of China. Tieling New City can now hold some 60,000 residents with projections of triple that number in the near future.

The city even won a special recognition from the U.N. Human Settlements Program as an example of “providing a well-developed and modern living space.” The only problem is that Tieling New City is virtually a ghost town with almost no inhabitants. It is a city without a soul.

Tieling New City is a brainchild of socialist planners who still run the nation with social engineering and old-fashioned communist corruption. These planners spent millions of yuan cleaning up marshland that had been used to dump untreated sewage. The logic was build first and populate later. The project also served as an economic stimulus project. With the downturn in world economy, China is trying to artificially pump up its economy by creating construction jobs, burning up money by throwing up a number of ghost cities like Tieling New City all over the country.

In typical Communist Chinese fashion, these cities are riddled with bad loans and deals crafted by corrupt officials who often trample on the rights of farmers and villagers forced to evacuate the area. This inorganic top-down manner of creating a city out of thin air is a surefire formula for building a city without a soul.

Tieling New City is truly a city without a soul. People simply don’t want to live there. There is no community life. There is no history or warmth. People feel more comfortable in crowded Tieling where they have links with friends, family and place.

Visitors cannot help but get an eerie feeling of being in a corpse-city when, at night, row after row of apartment buildings remain dark and nearly empty, save for a few residents and security guards. The industrial park is not much better. This vacant complex was built to be bustling with some 15,000 employees. Today, only two firms are there, one of which employs around 15 persons. Even with such dismal occupancy, there are still plans to double the park’s size. There is also a warehouse center on the outskirts of town that is virtually unused. Security guards seem to be the only real career opportunity in town with a future.

Despite the lack of enthusiasm for Tieling New City, the socialist planners were not easily discouraged. They came up with a set of socialist plans and schemes to move people in.

According to the Tieling government website, the industrial park created 5,000 jobs for rural workers in 2012. However, officials were soon disappointed to learn that most of the workers found places to live outside the new city. Officials then thought they found the solution when they moved many government offices from Tieling to Tieling New City. However, most government workers just commute from their old homes rather than move to the inhospitable city.

Officials went a step further by closing schools in the old city and forcing some 50,000 students to go to brand new schools in the new city. They hoped (against all hope) that parents would move closer to the schools. Alas, the parents are staying put. Despite the place’s outwardly pleasant appearance, they complain that the absence of community and services make the soulless city unlivable.

In face of such obstacles, socialist planners now believe the problem can be solved by building yet more facilities. According to The Wall Street Journal (8-9-13), the municipal government will be spending another $1.3 billion on new projects. Maybe, just maybe, officials reason, people will be attracted by an art gallery, a gymnasium, an indoor swimming pool, and another (empty) shopping center.

What central planners fail to realize is that cities must either be built organically or they will be empty shells. The most important components of the city are individuals, families and communities not warehouses, industrial parks and shopping centers.

As noted in my book, Return to Order, from the exuberant element of life together in society, there springs forth “unique systems of art, styles of life, socio-political institutions, and economic models that differ from the rigid and soulless central planning and one-size-fits-all solutions so prized by socialists and bureaucrats.”

Indeed, so many fail to consider this human element which is essential to sound economy. They think, like the Chinese socialist planners at Tieling New City, that economic health can be bought by simply injecting money into an area without any link to the inhabitants. Bring back family, morals and institutions to a city and it will acquire a soul. Until then, the world is doomed to continue building cities without souls.

Psalm 73

Psalm 73

Complete Jewish Bible

A Psalm of Asaf:

How good GOD is to Isra’el, to those who are pure in heart!

But for me, I lost my balance, my feet nearly slipped, when I grew envious of the arrogant and saw how the wicked prosper.

For when their death comes, it is painless; and meanwhile, their bodies are healthy; they don’t have ordinary people’s troubles, they aren’t plagued like others.

So for them pride is a necklace; and violence clothes them like a robe.

Their eyes peep out through folds of fat; evil thoughts overflow from their hearts.

They scoff and speak with malice, they loftily utter threats.

They set their mouths against Heaven; their tongues swagger through the earth.

Therefore his people return here and (thoughtlessly) suck up that whole cup of water.

Then they ask, “How does GOD know?” “Does the Most High really have knowledge?”

Yes, this is what the wicked are like; those free of misfortune keep increasing their wealth.

It’s all for nothing that I have kept my heart clean and washed my hands, staying free of guilt; for all day long I am plagued; my punishment comes every morning.

If I said, “I will be like them,” I would have betrayed a generation of Your children.

When I tried to understand this, I found it too hard for me – until I went into the sanctuaries of GOD and grasped what their destiny would be.

Indeed, You place them on a slippery slope and make them fall to their ruin.

How suddenly they are destroyed, swept away by terrors!

They are like a dream when one awakens; ADONAI, when You rouse Yourself, You will despise their phantoms.

When I had a sour attitude and felt stung by pained emotions, I was too stupid to understand; I was like a brute beast with You.

Nevertheless, I am always with You; You hold my right hand.

You will guide me with Your advise; and afterwards, You will receive me with honor.

Whom do I have in Heaven but You? And with You, I lack nothing on earth.

My mind and body may fail; but GOD is the Rock for my mind and my portion forever.

Those who are far from You will perish; you destroy all who adulterously leave you.

But for me, the nearness of GOD is my good; I have made ADONAI ELOHIM my refuge, so that I can tell of all Your works.

So, do you as a believer ever have those thoughts of the futility of living righteously when you see the prosperity of the wicked all around you? Do you remember when you as a non-believer thought that there were no eternal consequences for your lifestyle and behaviors? I do!

In the first and last verses Asaf nails what the heart of the believer should be, unlike Paul and Peter who rejoiced in their trials and tribulations, I am not at that place yet. I do thank GOD for them and I rejoice in who GOD is, this is a process that takes time and the amount of time is different for every person. But to be holy as GOD is Holy means that we have to see everything from GOD’s perspective as CHRIST did. He said that He only did what He saw the Father doing and only said what the Father was saying; He said that He did not come to do His will but the will of the One who sent Him, to serve and not be served.

Being a servant is a key teaching throughout the Bible, especially in the Gospels and Epistles. All the writers of the New Testament called themselves servants and slaves of CHRIST and workers of GOD’s Will. In western culture this goes against the grain of social teaching; which is be your own person, pursue your own dream, don’t let anyone stand in your way, etc. We do learn to serve when necessary employers, government, laws but most of us do it with a personal liberty to not conform to that which we disagree with; such as driving the speed limit, honesty on our tax return, etc. I know!

But, serving is the key component to being a Christian; JESUS told us that if we loved Him we would keep His commandments, He told us to treat others as we wanted to be treated, to lay down our life for other believers, we are called ambassadors of GOD’s Kingdom. Ambassadors are servants of the ruler who serve at the ruler’s pleasure.

The point is that if we are serving GOD our only thoughts and desires should be to obey Him in faith. What others are doing and saying should only be motivation to pray and minister not complain and grumble. This has been a slow learning process for me, but GOD’s love for me continues to drive me to yield and serve Him only, not myself; “Do nothing out of rivalry or vanity; but, in humility, regard each other as better than yourselves – lookout for each other’s interests and not just for your own. Let your attitude toward one another be governed by being in union with the Messiah Yeshua: Though He was in the form of GOD, He did not regard equality with GOD something to be possessed by force. On the contrary, he emptied Himself, in that He took the form of a slave by becoming like human beings are. And when He appeared as a human being, He humbled Himself still more by becoming obedient even to death – death on a stake as a criminal!” Philippians 2:3-8 CJB

Obsession for Contraception and Abortion at The United Nations Population Fund By Edwin Benson

Obsession for Contraception and Abortion at The United Nations Population Fund

By Edwin Benson

The United Nations Population Fund is mounting a worldwide campaign to promote abortion and contraception, and they want you to pay for it. Their 2019 Report asks for $264 billion. The United States pays twenty-two percent of the expenses of the U.N. Combine those two numbers, and the U.S. share is a shade over $58 billion. That money ultimately comes from your federal taxes.

The UNFPA

The U.N. established the Fund in 1969 as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. Even though it adopted its current name in 1987, it still uses its previous acronym – UNFPA.

A quick look at the UNFPA web site quickly reveals the feminist orientation of the organization. The first line on the page is “Ensuring rights and choices for all.” Lavishly illustrated, few men appear on its pages. After all, the feminist ideology denies any decision-making role to would-be fathers.

To commemorate its fiftieth anniversary in 2019, UNFPA devoted part of its web activities to a page called “Icons & Activists: 50 Years of People Making Change.” The background is a picture of shouting women raising their fists in a revolutionary gesture. Scrolling down reveals the statement, “For 50 years, the world’s icons and activists have made changes touching the lives of millions of women and girls. Today, people are more likely than ever to enjoy reproductive rights and choices. It is an extraordinary achievement, an inspiration to us all.”

Two “icons” are Margaret Sanger and Cecile Richards – the founder and recent president, respectively, of abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Other familiar names include Melinda Gates, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Atwood, and Christiane Amanpour – all of them strongly pro-abortion.

The “Unmet Need”

Much of the money that UNFPA requests would go toward ending “the unmet need or family planning.” According to the report, “There are 232 million women in developing countries who want to prevent their pregnancies but are not using modern contraceptives.” The figure is not documented, and readers are apparently supposed to accept it blindly.

As expected, the report contains no language that refers to any moral dimension regarding human reproduction. The “do your own thing” mentality that prevailed at the time of UNFPA’s founding in 1969 still prevails.

The report does claim “substantial progress” in the use of “modern” methods. “The number of women using modern methods of contraception has almost doubled from 470 million in 1990 to 840 million in 2018.” UNFPA wants to extend contraception to all within ten years at a cost of $12.00 per recipient – or a total cost of $68.5 billion.

We are then glibly informed that “net savings are likely to be realized. With reduced requirements for maternal health care and delivery, child health care, education and other services, the savings will be many times larger than the expenditure on family planning.”

All of the analysis is economical as if having a child is a purely monetary consideration. Left unsaid are the methods that it will use to convince women of their “unmet need.” Children are still a blessing in many parts of the “developing world.”

Ending Maternal Deaths

UNPLA also has the laudable goal of ending “preventable maternal deaths.” Unfortunately, some paths to this goal have nothing to do with protecting babies.

Table 4 in the report lists twenty-nine interventions that UNFPA says should be universally available. Many items refer to better pre-natal medical and nutritional care. However, the second and third items are “safe abortion services” and “post-abortion case management.” Further down the list comes “removal of retained products of conception.” This removal means making sure that all parts of the child are removed after the ghastly procedure of abortion.

How Did We Get to This Point?

The UNFPA 2019 report dismisses any sense that the protection of life is a fundamental moral issue. Any Christian understanding of the sanctity of life has no friends at UNFPA’s headquarters at 605 Third Avenue in New York City or in the United Nations’ glass tower a few blocks away.

The pursuit of a Godless peace is futile and fruitless. Without God’s help, the plight of humanity will only worsen. Utopic schemes, like that proposed by the UNFPA, are typical of those of bureaucrats who ignore the moral issues that can provide solutions.

Drag Queens in Schools – Where Parents Have No Say By Edwin Benson

Drag Queens in Schools – Where Parents Have No Say

By Edwin Benson

Promoters of “Drag Queen Story Hours” criticize those who protest at tax-payer supported libraries. They claim that if parents are upset, they should not take their children to the events. No one is forcing them to go, they say. It is their freedom to go or not to go.

Such a claim is no longer valid. The “Drag Queen Story Hour” is moving from libraries into primary schools. Journalists Michael Foust and Shane Trejo report about one such event in a school in New York City. Sohrab Ahmari, the op-ed editor for the New York Post and a convert to Catholicism, broke the story.

It appears the school shows have been happening for some time. Only now have they appeared on the radar.  Mr. Ahmari used his Twitter account to duplicate a message sent to parents by the school. It reads, “In an effort to continue to strengthen and enhance diversity in our school, the first grade will be taking part in a “Drag Queen Story Hour!” …We had a Drag Queen Story Hour the past few years at PS118 and the 1^st graders LOVED IT!”

Mr. Trejo’s article quoted a school e-mail that provided details to the parents. “Drag Queen Story Hour is run by a drag queen who will visit our school on Monday, February 24. She will read to the students, all while teaching into ideas of inclusiveness, gender fluidity and gender roles, family structures, acceptance, empathy and individuality…. We are so excited to bring this to our classrooms. I know the children will learn a lot and enjoy it as much as they did last year.”

The School and its Ideology

There is nothing special about P.S. 118. Known as Maurice Sendak Community School, it is in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. It gets its name from a prolific author of children’s books who was born and grew up in Brooklyn. The school occupies a building that once was home to Saint Thomas Aquinas parish school, which closed in 2005.

P.S. 118 opened in 2013. On its principal’s page, Principal Elizabeth Garraway sounds like everything that progressive education prizes. “Ms. Garraway’s greatest strength may lie in her ability to productively engage with a wide range of ‘constituents’ …..As a strong advocate for the value of diversity, Ms. Garraway’s warmth, strong work ethic, and genuine desire to collaborate models best practices.”

Redefining Deviancy

The Drag Queen Story Hour consists of men garishly dressed as women reading homosexual-oriented and related literature to young children.

Not even ten years ago, the fact that someone might propose a drag queen story hour at primary schools would be considered absurd. Forcing “gender fluidity” upon first graders would be considered child abuse, not education.

However, modern society prides itself on redefining deviant sexual behavior. It all started with cohabitation between unmarried men and women as acceptable. Later, homosexuality was presented as a “lifestyle choice.” Such behaviors began to be celebrated in movies and media. The canons of “diversity” soon demanded acceptance as the equivalent of traditional moral conduct.

Today the cutting edge of the sexual revolution is found in the Drag Queen Story Hours. Suddenly, the self-appointed arbiters of acceptable behavior advocate the idea that children should be exposed to as many “choices” as possible. As one drag queen said at a public hearing in Lafayette, La., the shows are meant to “groom” future generations to come.

Schools as Protectors

Both public and parochial schools used to protect children from such deviancy. The standards of dress, speech and decorum for teachers was high. The school was to be a haven of order. The children’s innocence was regarded as vital to proper moral development. Children needed protection from situations that they could not possibly understand. Few elements of this attitude remain.

Today any sense that children deserve protection from sexual impurity invites ridicule. Teachers in “health” classes dispense detailed information about physical intimacy and methods of contraception. When President Obama’s position on “transgender” students had sufficiently “evolved,” he sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter demanding that schools allow biological males to enter and use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Is it any wonder that drag queens now appear at primary schools?

The fact is that Drag Queen Story Hours are now being forced upon children. The old argument those who disagree can opt out no longer holds. These events are being mainstreamed into the culture. They steamroll over protesting parents.

Remember, it’s not about libraries anymore. Drag queen shows promoting “gender fluidity” and other outrages will soon be coming to a school around you.

Asking a Bishop: How is Climate Change Deadlier Than Abortion? By John Horvat II

Abortion presents a problem for the Catholic left since it does not fit into its social justice agenda. It certainly involves social justice in the highest degree since it is a great injustice to deprive an innocent person of life. However, the left, by its nature, always seeks to change “oppressive” social structures that they deem unjust. Abortion does not fit squarely into this category. Indeed, some Catholic leftists will use the oppressive structures of poverty or patriarchy as a reason to justify abortion.

While the Catholic left prefers other issues like climate change, social revolution, and illegal immigration, it is hard to argue against the missing 60 million Americans. These issues pale in comparison to the magnitude of death caused by the sin of abortion. Thus, abortion has long occupied the preeminent place on the American Catholic political scene.

A bishop Speaks Out:

However, a key Catholic figure is directly disputing abortion’s preeminent place as a non-negotiable issue for faithful Catholic voters.

Speaking at the University of San Diego on February 6, Most Rev. Robert McElroy, Bishop of San Diego, cast doubt on abortion’s preeminent position, especially in light of the upcoming elections. He did not directly discourage opposition to abortion but put climate change on equal footing, declaring that “both abortion and the environment are core life issues in Catholic teaching.”

The two issues pose unequal threats, however. For the outspoken liberal bishop, “the long-term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger [than that from abortion] and threatens the very future of humanity.”

Three questions about Bishop McElroy’s controversial statements need to be answered.

To Bishop McElroy, the Politician

The first is addressed directly to Bishop McElroy, the politician: “Your Excellency, why are you raising this issue now?”

Bishops need to be involved in political battles, but that is not their chief function. They must uphold Church teaching even when it is not politically correct or opportune.

Thus, American Catholics must question why the bishop is raising this issue now. Pro-life Catholics have reached the height of their political power mobilizing millions nationwide. They have turned the tide to the point where nearly half of all Americans identify as pro-life. No one, not even the president, can ignore the influence of the pro-life movement.

This influence is starting to bear fruit in the appointment of pro-life judges. Some are even saying that the overturning of Roe v. Wade is possible. By denying abortion’s preeminence, the bishop is undermining decades of work in the trenches by countless Catholics and other Americans to end the intrinsically evil sin of procured abortion in America and the world.

 

In making this statement during an election year, Bishop McElroy intentionally muddles the issues in the hope of encouraging Catholics to vote for radical pro-abortion candidates who are eco- or illegal immigration-friendly.

To Bishop McElroy, the Scientist

The second question involves Bishop McElroy, the scientist: “Your Excellency, why are you speaking as a scientist?”

Bishop McElroy is not a scientist and thus speaks outside his competence when painting a picture based on alarmist scientific speculation devoid of solid facts. He cites “existing trajectories of pollutants” that are “unchecked.” Like so many before him, he makes catastrophic predictions of rising temperatures, famines, and even “perilous viruses.”

He is quick to blame a “trajectory of danger unleashed by fossil fuels” that makes action over the next 10 years imperative. His speech reads like a blessing of the Green New Deal. He even claims that “it is a far greater moral evil for our country to abandon the Paris Climate Accord than to provide contraceptives to federal health centers.”

Just as abortion is not settled law, catastrophic climate change is far from being settled science. Abortion kills tens of millions every year around the world. There are no recorded deaths specifically due to climate change. In striving to diminish the world’s population, those promoting the intrinsic evils of abortion and contraception work hand-in-hand with climate change activists.

To Bishop McElroy, the Bishop

The third question is the most tragic and important one: “Your Excellency, why aren’t you speaking as a bishop, which is your area of competence?”

Bishops speak about matters touching on God and His relationship with humanity. But Bishop McElroy’s speech projects a purely naturalistic worldview, a perspective from which God and the supernatural are absent.

Sin and vice distance humanity from God. They turn the world into a hell of disorder and conflict. The denouncing and condemning of sin, the defense of God, His Divine Law, and the Catholic faith – such are the bailiwick of a bishop. So also is the extolling of the practice of the virtue of purity as the true solution to contraception and abortion. Such are the messages the world expects from a bishop. But this is especially true for Catholics since he is their shepherd. How sad that today, instead of the bread they ask for, the Catholic faithful so often receive stones (see Luke 11:11).

To claim that climate change is deadlier than abortion is to deny the truth anyone can see. Moreover, when sin expands its dominion unchecked, the world it creates is necessarily an ecologically hostile one—as evidenced by China’s environmentally disastrous, pro-abortion regime.

People must work toward preserving the environment, a gift of God. However, their first duty will ever be to obey God and His Divine Law.

Unless America can get it right with God—putting an end to the nation’s sin in Roe v. Wade, which legalized the mass slaughter of innocent pre-born Americans—then all that can be expected are His chastisements.

And in chastising, as the Church teaches, God frequently uses secondary causes, and the forces of nature, which He created, are among them.

As seen on LifeSiteNews.