Connect with us

Culture and Religion

“Pro-Life” GOP may fund Planned Parenthood and kill the adoption tax credit

Published

on

Adoption Tax Credit

Let me get this straight. There’s a good chance that the GOP will continue to fund Planned Parenthood as they’ve done since taking over both chambers of Congress, but they’re proposing killing off the adoption tax credit that is arguably the most pro-life thing the federal government offers. This is reason #492 why I am helping to build the truly pro-life Federalist Party instead of trying to fix a party that clearly doesn’t represent policies it claims to embrace.

I appreciate that the GOP wants to cut taxes. If anything, I think they’re not going far enough, that their proposed “reforms” are mostly shifts from one pocket to the other, and the fact that they’re not drastically cutting spending simultaneously is ludicrous. However, there are a very small number of righteous tax breaks out there and the adoption tax credit is one of them.

David French, who used the credit when adopting in 2010, has a perspective that every Republican lawmaker should read:

Adoption Tax Credit: A Pro-Life Policy Republicans Must Save

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453410/adoption-tax-credit-pro-life-policy-republicans-saveHow much does it cost to adopt?  An Adoptive Families Magazine survey of 1,100 families who adopted children from 2012 to 2013 found that the average family spent $34,093 on independent adoptions and $39,966 if they went through an agency. My family adopted our youngest daughter in 2010, and those numbers match our experience.

There is, however, one thing that helps these families, and it helps a lot: It’s called the adoption tax credit, a $13,570 non-refundable credit that phases out for truly high-income families.

They GOP could cut $300 million (the amount on paper the credit costs in federal revenue annually) worth of budget by slashing the EPA’s wasteful spending by less than 4%. The taxes that Apple alone pays is enough to cover the credit over 40-fold. Last year, Senator James Lankford released a list of 100 examples of truly wasteful spending by the government that accounted for nearly a quarter trillion dollars; that’s over 8 centuries worth of adoption tax credits.

By no means am I suggesting that $300 million is a small amount of money even by U.S. government standards, but with all of the ludicrous things DC does with our money, surely the “pro-life” GOP could have found better things to cut.

Why would this even be a consideration? There’s one simple reason…

Most GOP representatives do not consider life to be a vote-losing issue

When I first started researching the three options (fixing the GOP, helping a preexisting third party, or starting a new party), I was given some very important information by an unnamed adviser. Abortion is not a vote-changer. A plurality considers the economy the most important factor. Some look at foreign policy. Millions will vote based specifically on the 2nd Amendment, immigration policy, or healthcare, but very few vote based upon the abortion issue.

The reason for this is pretty straightforward. While a large number of people are polarized by the issue, few are actually directly involved. Being pro-life is a plus for Republicans, but not the thing that gets them the votes. Someone could be pro-life, but if they are perceived to be hurting an economic factor that affects their voters, they’ll lose.

Does that mean that people don’t consider it to be important? No. They view the issue as one with very little movement one way or the other. Representatives don’t need to champion the pro-life movement. They simply have to claim to be pro-life and they’re a Republican. No action required.

The adoption tax credit is a pro-life credit. It’s a statement that the government is willing to help promote more adoptions, giving people with unwanted pregnancies more options than simply aborting the pre-born child. The flip-side is true as well. By continuing to fund Planned Parenthood, we’re signaling as a nation that we support abortions with taxpayer money. Don’t tell me none of the money goes towards abortions. Just don’t.

Keep in mind that there are many representatives who are truly pro-life, who will fight to defund Planned Parenthood, and who would love to protect the adoption tax credit. Unfortunately, they’re being given very little reason by their constituents to do so in the tax plan. Not enough pundits are speaking out. Too few people are calling to let them know. Most Republicans on Capitol Hill are doing anything they can to register their first win during the Trump era and most GOP voters who would normally scream about this issue are willfully ignoring it so as not to derail the first sign of progress the party might make.

Funding Planned Parenthood and killing the adoption tax credit should be hung as albatrosses around the necks of every Republican on Capitol Hill if they go through with these plans. It’s an issue of convenience to them right now. More people need to speak up and tell them they should be ashamed for even considering it.

Update: Just as I thought there were too few in conservative media calling this out, I found another…

I Cannot Support the GOP’s Tax Reform Plan As It Stands

http://theresurgent.com/i-cannot-support-the-gops-tax-reform-plan-as-it-stands/The GOP calls itself a pro-life party. But it continues to fund Planned Parenthood and now wants to kill the adoption tax credit.

I’d rather kill the tax reform plan.

This really is a hill to die on in the fight for tax reform and you should call on your member of congress to oppose this plan unless the adoption tax credit is restored.

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

Published

on

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

In this extremely interesting short video detailing archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, the folks at World Video Bible School highlight some amazing evidence. I don’t know much about WVBS, but I can endorse this video itself.

Here’s the first of the 9 discoveries:

The Pilate Inscriptions

In 1961 in an Italian sponsored dig in Caesarea, archaeologists uncovered a stone that had a Latin inscription on it that said “Pontius Pilatus… prefect of Judea.” That Pilate is mentioned in the Gospel accounts on several occasions. You read in John 18:29:

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

The find verifying the New Testament statement that Pilate was the prefect of Judea.

8 more

All of these discoveries are proper, indisputable archaeological finds. It’s one thing to contest the Bible’s authenticity as the Word of God, though its very presence and the takeaways we can draw from it point the faithful to the truth. However, claiming it as being historically wrong is being debunked regularly.

The authenticity of the Bible as a historical document is no longer a valid argument against it. As more archaeological evidence points to its physical truths, so too should its words and lessons be completely trustworthy to those seeking the truth.

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report