Thursday, December 10, 2009

Is America Pro-Choice?

Good Morning! it has been nearly one month since my last posting...time just seems to slip away day by day and life moves at too rapid a pace sometimes...

Is America really pro-choice? Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, reviews an article in The New York media that is brutally honest in answering this is an awesome piece that I encourage you to look over:

NewsNote: An Amazing Article on Abortion in New York Magazine
Posted: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 at 3:39 pm ET

Week by week, New York magazine offers insight into the culture and consciousness of the nation's trendy population in Manhattan. This magazine, combined with The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker, provides constant insight into the thinking of the New York elites. The magazine recently featured a major article on abortion, and it just might be the most important article on this issue in recent history.
In "The Abortion Distortion -- Just How Pro-choice is America, Really?," writer Jennifer Senior offers an incredibly insightful and important essay on the moral status of abortion in the American mind. Senior is clearly writing to a New York readership -- expected to be overwhelmingly pro-choice and settled in a posture of abortion advocacy. Given the passage of the so-called "Stupak amendment" to the health-care reform bill adopted by the House of Representatives, many in the pro-choice movement responded with amazement that a pro-life minority has been able to muster such support. Jennifer Senior posed the most awkward question for her readers: Is America really pro-choice?

Consider this:
According to a Gallup poll from July, 60 percent of Americans think abortion should be either illegal or “legal only in a few circumstances.” Only seventeen states pay for the procedure for poor women beyond the standards of the 1977 Hyde Amendment—meaning if the woman’s life is in danger or she’s been the victim of rape or incest. Just two months before the health-care bill’s passage in the House, a Rasmussen poll found that 48 percent of the public didn’t want abortion covered in any government-subsidized health plan, while just 13 percent did. (Thirty-two percent believed in a “neutral” approach—though what on Earth that means is hard to say.)
As a matter of fact, Senior went all the way back to 1973 in order to document her assessment that America was never as pro-choice as many liberals had assumed. The legal impact of Roe v. Wade could not overcome the fact that, as Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington University noted, the decision "was one of the few Supreme Court decisions that was out of step with mainstream public opinion."
Senior suggests that America is "a very ambivalent pro-choice nation." She acknowledges the numerical data that indicates an increasing pro-life direction for the American people and, speaking to a pro-choice readership, laments that "it sometimes gets lost how truly numerically challenged we are."
So, just how did the Stupak amendment pass?
The idea that a bunch of pro-life rogue wingnuts have hijacked the agenda and thwarted the national will is a convenient, but fanciful, belief. Even with an 81-person margin in the House, and even with a passionately committed female, pro-choice Speaker, it was the Democrats who managed to pass a bill that, arguably, would restrict access to abortion more aggressively than any state measure or legal case since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade.
Along the way, Jennifer Senior makes some fascinating observations. In terms of the motivation to be engaged in the issue of abortion, she quotes Harrison Hickman, a former NARAL pollster, as saying: "If you believe that choosing the wrong side of the issue means spending eternal life in Hades, of course you're going to be more focused on it." That is a very powerful affirmation of the fact that one's worldview really does matter.
She also understands the great generational shift taking place on the issue. She recognizes that the current generation of younger voters "is the most pro-life to come along since the generation born during the Great Depression." Why? This same generation is the first to grow up with ultrasound images taped to the refrigerator door. Their understanding of the fetus is dramatically different from those who never had to face those images. Furthermore, Senior also raises the fascinating insight that the big technological advance experienced by this generation was IVF -- a technology that allowed having babies rather than not having them. This generation understands the issue in terms of infant human life. They do not see a mere fetus. They recognize a baby. Nancy Keenan of NARAL is cited as saying that the biggest defenders of abortion are now a "menopausal militia."
Senior also deals with the troubled moral conscience of the pro-choice movement and abortion providers with remarkable candor. She reports that abortion counselors "will also tell you that the stigma attached to the procedure is worse than it's been in years." She cites Charlotte Taft, operator of a Dallas abortion clinic, who acknowledged to a reporter that women know "abortion is a kind of killing." Jeannie Ludlow is cited for her uncomfortable experience in seeing repeat-abortion patients. The horror and reality of late-term abortions is documented -- even as the continued "right" to such procedures is advocated.
By any measure, Jennifer Senior has written one of the most honest, revealing, insightful, and important articles on abortion to appear in recent history. At the same time, it is one of the most troubling. Once again, we are reminded that the American conscience is not settled on the issue of abortion. We should be thankful that recent events and cultural developments -- aided and abetted by technology -- have made a real difference, helping and forcing Americans to understand that abortion is the killing of a human life.
In a very real sense, we should be thankful that the American conscience remains unsettled on this issue. A good and honest conversation about the reality of abortion is one of the best means of serving the cause of life. Jennifer Senior's honest article can serve as an incredibly potent catalyst for such a conversation.


Jennifer Senior, "The Abortion Distortion -- Just How Pro-Choice is America, Really?," New York Magazine, November 29, 2009. [Partial nudity in cover photo.]

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Global Warming Nonsense!

Good Evening...

In December, countries around the world are sending representatives to Copenhagen(sp)to work on a global warming, Global Warming is a cruel hoax whereby people like Al Gore are making more money than you can shake a stick at...he is lobbying Congress to enact laws that will continue to benefit Al Gore...getting back to Copenhagen...the following is a list of companies that are sponsoring this or are partnering to make it happen (I encourage you to boycott them!):

Ad Council
Advertising Week
Alex Tehrani (Photographer)
Art Info
Br√łndby IF
Business India
Business Insider
Business Standard
Business Week
Buzz Logic
Christian Weber (Photographer)
Citadel Media
Clang (Photographer)
Clear Channel
Climate One
CO2 Cubes
Colle + McVoy
Connie Hedegaard
Danish Foreign Ministry
Discovery Channel
Earth Hour
Everyday Health
Flavor Pill
Global Observatory
Good Magazine
Grub Street
Guest of a Guest
Health Central
Huffington Post
International Advertising Association
International Herald Tribune
The Japan Times
Joachim Ladefoged (Photographer)
Kinetic Worldwide
Marge Ely c/o Gallery Stock
MDC Partners
Menu Pages
Mother Jones
National Geographic
National Geographic Stock
Natural Capitalism Solutions
Natural History
NY Mag
Part Two
Paul Davis (Illustrator)
Presidential Climate Action Project
Rajasthan Patrika
Real Simple
Scientific American
Sea Web
Segal Communications
Stefan Ruiz (Photographer)
SustainLane Media
Text Appeal
The City of Copenhagen
The Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy
The Economist
The Financial Times
The Wall Street Journal
Thomson Reuters
Tribal Fusion
T-sign Studios
Vibrant Media
Visit Denmark
Warner Bros Digital Media
Washington Monthly
Weather Undeground

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Finally, A Way to Lose Weight Effectively!

Have you ever wondered if there was a way to lose weight and keep it off? Well I have run across a website that shows that very thing...just click on the following link:

Get Rid of Books?

I know that the title intrigued you! However, what I have run across is a website where you might sell any books that, well, maybe you are just ready to get rid of. Just follow the link below:
Sell Used Books Online - Quick Cash, Free Shipping, Free Quotes!

Sell Books Online at

Monday, November 2, 2009

Hate Crimes

The President has made good on one of his campaign promises to the Homosexual lobby by his signing of the Hate Crimes legislation. The following article from Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says it quite well:

“Free to Live and Love as We See Fit?”
Posted: Friday, October 30, 2009 at 2:47 am ET

As Sen. John McCain recently remarked, "elections have consequences." President Barack Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" into law on Thursday, fulfilling a campaign promise and handing the gay rights community one of its most sought-after achievements.
The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks "based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability."
Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:
It's hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It's hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who'd offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.
Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously. It is not only "hard" for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible. Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as "hate crimes" shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list? If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?
Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as "hate speech." It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision. It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.
There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill. The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments. "This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition," said the President. "Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we've been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit."
Does President Obama actually mean what he said here? Does he really call for a society "in which we're all free to live and love as we see fit?" The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.
But the "free to live and love as we see fit" language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill. President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter. When he speaks of all citizens being "free to live and love as we see fit" he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision? The "polyamorous?" Incest? The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as "loves" goes far beyond these.
We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called "polymorphous perversity." I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving "as we see fit." But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.
In another sense, the President's language was revealing. The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories. In an age that elevates "consent" as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure. It is all just a matter of time.
Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?


Friday, October 16, 2009

Maybe...just maybe...the "Birthers" are right?

Good afternoon...all around these parts the talk of Obama and his birth location have been all the rage...probably because two separate lawsuits have been brought right here in good 'ole Columbus, Georgia that U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land has dismissed out of hand and even fined the attorney bringing the case $20,000.00 for filing a frivolous case...I am not opposed to a judge tossing out cases, but he proceeded to insult the attorney and even denied her the right to call witnesses to defend her actions which brought about the he dismissed the cases, fined the attorney and then denied due process rights...and I thought we lived in America...anyway, the following article just might give her a little more credibility as you will see that the AP has reported that Barack Obama was actually born in...are you ready for this...KENYA!

AP declared Obama “Kenyan-Born”
Text size
John Charlton
The Post & Email
October 16, 2009

What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.

How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at

The AP reporter stated the following:

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.

The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama: because if you search for “Kenyan-born US Senate” you wont find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.

For those who believe what they see, here is the screen capture of the page from the Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004 — Just in case that page is scrubbed from the Web Archive:

Readers should take note that this AP story, was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide. If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story. You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm. However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.

It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.

A Chronology of Deceit

One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough: “Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii. This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.

In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.

Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:

June 25, 2004 —,2933,123716,00.html

June 26, 2004 — Bellview News Democrat

June 26, 2004 — AP Online Story by Michael Tarm

June 25, 2004 — AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan

(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)

(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The Nobel Peace Prize?

Good has been a while since I have posted anything...sometimes life just gets busy! Anyway, I was rather surprised, as were many of you, when it was announced last week that President Obama had been awarded the Peace Prize. I wondering what he could have done in such a short time in office to even be considered, much less win the Prize. I ran across the following article by Dr. David Reagan that says it pretty well:

The Noble Farce

Dr. David R. Reagan


Once again the Norwegian Noble Committee has surprised the world with its Peace Prize Award by granting it to President Barack Obama. Keep in mind this is the same group that gave the award to Al Gore in 2007 and Jimmy Carter in 2002.
What was Al Gore’s accomplishment? The production of a documentary film that propagandized the myth that global warming is due to carbon emissions. Big deal!
And Jimmy Carter? Well, the worst president of the 20th Century distinguished himself as a rabid anti-Semite, a vociferous America-basher, and a gushing tyrant-lover.
And then, of course, there was the worst Noble Peace Prize of all of them — the one awarded in 1994 to the world’s leading terrorist, Yassar Arafat, a modern-day Hitler. When that occurred, I lost all respect for the Noble Committee and their meaningless prize.
So, why would the Committee award President Obama the Peace Prize when he has been in office only nine months and has no notable accomplishments on the international scene? There are several reasons:
1) The President has engaged in America-bashing everywhere he has spoken in the world, as if this nation is the world’s greatest threat to peace, when, in actuality, we have always been the world’s best defender of freedom.
2) The President has denounced the “Lone Ranger” foreign policy mentality of the Bush Administration, a foreign policy that rightfully put this nation’s interests first and successfully protected us from terrorist attacks for seven years.
3) The President has praised the immoral values of European law and has expressed a esire to align our laws with those values.
4) The President has committed himself to instituting domestic reforms that would undermine Capitalism and produce a mirror-image of the failed Socialist economies of Europe.
5) The President has taken every opportunity to praise the ungodly and violent religion of Islam.
6) The President has made it clear that he is willing to abandon Israel for the sake of “peace” in the Middle East.
7) The President has indicated that he is willing to surrender American sovereignty to international organizations.
No wonder the world is enthralled with him and cheering him. No wonder the world desires to give him encouragement.
But his day of reckoning is coming. His terrible mis-management of our economy will catch up with him as unemployment continues to mount and the dollar continues its dive in value. Most important, he is going to suffer the wrath of God on the international scene due to his mis-treatment of Israel.
In short, we are headed for disaster on both the national and international scenes, so the President had better enjoy the world’s spotlight now before all the lights go out.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Random Thoughts...

Well, it has been a while since I last posted anything and during the ensuing time, a lot of things have happened that need some here goes...

On September 1, my wife Sandy and I celebrated 25 years of marriage and it has been the best 25 years! Honey if you are reading this (and you should be reading my blogs everyday anyway as a spousal support kind of thing!) You are the GREATEST! I love you more today than ever before...You are simply amazing...

September 5, Two of my sons, Cameron & Collin, turned 18 and 16 respectively (yes, they were born on the same day two years apart!) I am so pleased at how they are maturing more and more each day...Cameron is really coming into his own and is acting more like a grown-up these days (after-all, he continues to tell everyone that he is an adult now!) Collin continues to excell in the atheletic world...he is currently playing soccer (or football everywhere else) and while I thought that this would be good conditioning for basketball season, he continues to show that he can do anything he wants in the realm of sports...

September 9, the President went to Congress to beef up support of his health care proposals...I won't be like Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina who blurted out, "YOU LIE", but I just don't believe that the President is being completely open about his agenda behind the plan...should Wilson apoligize? Sure, I believe that there should be a certain decorum within Congress when anyone is speaking, especially the POTUS...having said that, the more that anyone looks at the Health Care bills being proposed, the more one finds scary things in them...what you may ask, could be scary about a health care bill? For instance, the House bill requires that companies that do not have unionized workers must pay more money because of that...I watched Fox & Friends this morning and heard this being discussed...

September 11...A day to remember...not a "day of service" While this is a laudable goal (better to encourage this as an everyday thing) 9/11 is all about remembering what happen to over 3,000 of our fellow citizens and their families...certainly not a time to push agendas...while I am on the subject of agendas, I am really tired of hearing people in the Obama camp making statements that anyone who is against something that the President wants is a racist! I guess when there is no other argument to be made, trot out the race card to confuse the about we oppose the Presidents plans simply because he is a liberal democrat who wants to increase availabilty of abortion while spending tax dollars to do it; he wants to confiscate the health care industry like he has done with the auto industry (who ever heard of a President firing a CEO of a private company before?)...he wants to tax us into oblivion with the "Cap & Trade" legiislation, better known as "Cap & Tax"...the list goes on and on...when is enough enough?
I don't care what color the President is, what matters are his beliefs and what policies he pursues...if he pursues liberal policies then I am against him, if he pursues conservative policies, then I am for really is that simple...

Friday, August 28, 2009


Good morning...the article you are about to read is...well, scary to say the least...when I first saw the headline I figured that it must be Germany or some other country that is hostile to home-schoolers...boy was I shocked to see that the story has taken place right here in the good 'ole the state of New shocked, amazed and outraged that something like this could happen here...a harbinger of what is to come:

Court orders Christian child into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge

Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.
The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."
The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.
The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.
In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.
But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."
The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."
"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.
"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."
The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.
The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.
"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.
"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."
"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.
"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.
The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.
"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Maybe They should Re-Think That Decision!

Good Evening...

During this week, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has held a national convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. During this convention, the ELCA voted to accept practicing homosexual ministers as clergy. The ELCA has already allowed celebate homosexual ministers as clergy and now practicing homosexuals...I wonder what God might be thinking about this practice that He has labeled as an "abomination" and its acceptance by more and more denominations across this country...maybe this report provided by Dr.John Piper can provide an answer:

The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality
August 20, 2009 | By: John Piper | Category: Commentary

I saw the fast-moving, misshapen, unusually-wide funnel over downtown Minneapolis from Seven Corners. I said to Kevin Dau, “That looks serious.”

It was. Serious in more ways than one. A friend who drove down to see the damage wrote,

On a day when no severe weather was predicted or expected...a tornado forms, baffling the weather experts—most saying they’ve never seen anything like it. It happens right in the city. The city: Minneapolis.

The tornado happens on a Wednesday...during the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's national convention in the Minneapolis Convention Center. The convention is using Central Lutheran across the street as its church. The church has set up tents around it’s building for this purpose.

According to the ELCA’s printed convention schedule, at 2 PM on Wednesday, August 19, the 5th session of the convention was to begin. The main item of the session: “Consideration: Proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality.” The issue is whether practicing homosexuality is a behavior that should disqualify a person from the pastoral ministry.

The eyewitness of the damage continues:

This curious tornado touches down just south of downtown and follows 35W straight towards the city center. It crosses I94. It is now downtown.

The time: 2PM.

The first buildings on the downtown side of I94 are the Minneapolis Convention Center and Central Lutheran. The tornado severely damages the convention center roof, shreds the tents, breaks off the steeple of Central Lutheran, splits what’s left of the steeple in two...and then lifts.

Central Lutheran's broken steeple

Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant.

1. The unrepentant practice of homosexual behavior (like other sins) will exclude a person from the kingdom of God.

The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

2. The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin but who still struggle with homosexual desires, rejoicing with them that all our fallen, sinful, disordered lives (all of us, no exceptions) are forgiven if we turn to Christ in faith.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

3. Therefore, official church pronouncements that condone the very sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God, are evil. They dishonor God, contradict Scripture, and implicitly promote damnation where salvation is freely offered.

4. Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados.

Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? (Mark 4:41)

5. When asked about a seemingly random calamity near Jerusalem where 18 people were killed, Jesus answered in general terms—an answer that would cover calamities in Minneapolis, Taiwan, or Baghdad. God’s message is repent, because none of us will otherwise escape God’s judgment.

Jesus: “Those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:4-5)

6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Do Not Be Afraid! God Is On The Throne!

Good afternoon...the current events in the news might have some people in a quandary and filled with fear, but the wonderful news is God is still in control and has everything going according to His plan...that should bring great comfort to all believers in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior! Jack Kinsella has a great piece that tells us just that:

The Mean Spirit
Commentary on the News
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

When I was a kid growing up, my father had a policy that he expressed thusly: "The first time you do something wrong, it might be an accident. The second time, it's deliberate."
There was always room for leniency on Count One. For Count Two for the same offense, you got the chair. The one thing for which the penalty was always something just short of death was for lying.
My Dad hated a liar worse than anything. Another of his sayings was, "Anybody who would lie would cheat. And anybody who would cheat would steal."
To my Dad a liar was automatically a cheat and a thief. "It's a matter of character. If you lie, it doesn't matter. You have no character."
Over the course of my lifetime, I've seen my Dad's opinion of liars vindicated many times over.
One excellent example is America's 42nd president.
That he is a proven liar is beyond doubt -- he was even convicted of lying under oath, resulting in the revocation of his law license.
Was he also a cheat? Ask Monica Lewinsky. Paula Jones. Juanita Broderick. Kathleen Willy. Or ask Hillary.
Was he proved a thief? The General Accounting Office said so, sending out teams to recover vanloads of misappropriated (stolen) White House furniture, etc., when the couple left the Oval Office.
Whether or not America's 44th president is a thief and a cheat is as yet unproved. That he is a liar is now beyond debate. That is proved by my father's other adage, 'the second time is deliberate'.
We discussed the presidential town hall meeting in Portsmouth in Wednesday's OL and the series of what Press Secretary Gibbs called 'misstatements' about the plan.
In Friday's OL, we discussed the presidential contention that AARP had endorsed his health care plan. AARP promptly issued a statement denying the endorsement. At the daily press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed it by saying the president 'misspoke.'
Then Obama went to another town hall meeting, this time, in Montana. Once again, the White House insisted that the crowd was not cherry-picked and that Obama was expecting a rough time.
Once again, the crowd was polite and respectful and in the main, supportive of both his administration and universal health care. There was none of the anger that has typified most town hall meetings; no 'angry mobs' of senior citizens carrying oxygen tanks, or cancer patients demanding to be heard.
According to a report from Newsmax, "The Montana crowd“ which unlike the one in New Hampshire reportedly was not hand-picked by the White House“ appeared no less Obama-friendly.
"Something's a little fishy here," Jim Walters, eastern coordinator for Resistnet, a grass-roots organization affiliated with the Alliance, told Newsmax prior to the event. "They weren't supposed to start handing out tickets until 9 o'clock. I had people up here at 8, and the tickets were already gone."
(Later, Gibbs suggested that Obama's crowds were representative of real America and therefore the 'angry mobs' at the Congressional town hall meetings were all Republican operatives.)
While in Bozeman, Obama repeated his assertion that AARP had endorsed his health care plan. He also repeated his statement that "if the AARP is onboard, then seniors have nothing to worry about."
That was just one of five provable whoppers Obama repeated after he had been corrected by the parties involved.
Rich Noyes, director of research for the conservative Media Research Center, was quoted by Newsmax saying the Obama administration is betting the mainstream media will continue echoing its talking points, without giving them the same sharp perusal they direct toward factual assertions from conservatives.
"We've seen fact-check after fact-check on NBC, ABC, and CBS, trying to debunk the conservative talking points," Noyes says. "And yet there's been no equal effort to scrutinize the claims put forth by Congress or the president, which is a very unbalanced playing field."
Obama is trying to cast himself in a role similar to the fact-checkers employed by the networks, to give voters "the impression it is Obama and the fact-checkers versus a bunch of liars on the right," says Noyes.That strategy requires the mainstream media to stay in the tank for Obama without breaking ranks to tell the truth. Think about that for a minute. The entire strategy is one based on being able to tell provable, known and deliberately repeated lies without worrying about being exposed by a pet White House press corps.
These are not accidental lies; nor are they inconsequential lies. To a senior who only gets their news from one of the network nightly news broadcasts, (old habits die hard) the fact that the health care plan is endorsed by AARP is sufficient to get their support for it.
Obama knows it isn't a fact -- but they don't --AND he knows that Katie Couric or Brian Williams aren't going to correct him. So he repeats the lie, even after being corrected, betting that only those paying close attention will know -- and they've already been marginalized as a 'mob'.
Obama knows that claiming he 'misspoke' twice on the same topic wouldn't fool my father. Or very many of his generation. The first time might be an accident. The second time is deliberate. So the only alternative understanding is that he doesn't care. And he doesn't.
The disrespect that Obama has for the American people borders on open contempt. Those who disagree with him are demonized and marginalized and insulted and disrespected as unAmerican, dishonest partisans who are all card-carrying Republicans or right wing conservatives.
I caught part of the O'Reilly Factor last night when Laura Ingraham was guest-hosting. One of her guests attempted to misdirect the conversation away from the facts about the opposition by gratuitously insulting Sarah Palin, predicting one day she'll be dating some hip hop artist on VH1 when Igraham called him on it.
Ingraham made the point that the Left has "nothing left" except personal attacks and insults to throw at its opponents. I believe it may be even deeper than that.
There is a viciousness to it that goes beyond politics. Some secular pundits call it 'mean-spirited' without ever knowing what they are saying or how right they are in saying it. There is clearly some kind of spiritual influence at work here beyond anything we've ever witnessed.
Obama exhibits an almost demonic ability to manipulate his supporters -- and some of them, in turn, seem to be almost demonically devoted to their master.
They appear willing to believe and defend pretty much anything he says, despite his obvious penchant for dissembling the facts and his open contempt for them and their petty little problems.
The moment one of his supporters becomes a liability . . . well, he's done it so often we have a phrase for it -- "throwing them under the bus."
Yet those not yet crushed under its wheels remain fanatically devoted to him. Let someone dare question his citizenship and they'll report them to the White House.
Do they wonder why he is paying lawyers to hide his history? No. Would it matter to them if he were an illegal alien? Probably not.
There is a spirit at work here, and the secular pundits are right when they say it is a mean spirit. It is also a spirit on a mission. I believe an argument can be made to the effect that spirit has been given his marching orders as part of a wider battle plan.
According to Scripture, when the antichrist comes on the scene, he takes control of an existing economic, political and religious government infrastructure that encompasses what we know as the West.
Revelation 13:17-18 says that his control of that infrastructure is so centralized that he will be able to enforce his will by excluding dissidents from normal society.
No man will be able to buy or sell, John says, unless they are part of his system. Even today, that is only partly possible.
One could be rendered socially 'dead' by the simple expedient of retiring one's Social Security number. Without a valid Social Security number, you can't get a job. You can't have a bank account. You can't get a car loan. You can't buy a house. You can't get a credit card and you can't even board an airplane.
But there remain ways around some of the restrictions -- illegal aliens do it all the time. Cash is anonymous, and where there is cash, there are ways. But remove anonymous cash and make everything an electronic transaction and ALL the holes a plugged.
If you aren't part of the system, you can't buy your way around the rules -- what will you use to pay someone off?
This is where we're heading . . . the stimulus bill, cap and trade, the government takeover of key industries, the monetizing of the debt, the trillion dollar printing press and now control over one sixth of the nation's economy -- health care -- clearly the intent is to destroy the dollar.
The only logical reason is so that a new currency can be imposed to replace the dollar, which is already transparently worthless. It's been over-collateralized to the point where nobody wants to risk holding anymore US debt.
And since the majority of US debt is held by countries like China and Russia, nobody can afford a US default.
That only leaves one alternative to total, global economic collapse. A new currency backed by more than the old one is. The Amero would have been backed by the inclusion of the Mexican and Canadian economies, plus their abundant natural resources, but public opposition has put that plan on hold, if it hasn't killed it altogether.
If we are as far along the Bible's timeline for the last days as the Bible appears to suggest, then what we are witnessing is the start of an effort to remake the West into a single economic and political entity under a single authority.
Everything Obama is doing seems to point in exactly that direction. It is hard to see how things can turn out differently.
This is the right time. This is the right place. The Bible says the seat of government in the last days is in Rome, not Washington. So something has to happen to shift power in that direction, and it looks like that 'something' may well be happening right before our eyes.
Don't let it scare you. The fact that these things are taking place according to a set schedule is evidence that there is a Scheduler. And how He accomplishes His will remains up to Him.
The Church is still here and the Holy Spirit is still hard at work restraining evil. Unless the Rapture happens first, Obama should lose control of the Congress in 2010. That could put everything on hold while the Lord waits until the last possible moment before recalling His Spirit and His Bride along with Him.
So it isn't ALL doom and gloom. The Lord knows what He is doing, and He wanted us to be sure that we would know what He has in mind. That's why He gave us prophecy. So we wouldn't be surprised. So we wouldn't fear. So we would trust Him instead of trusting to our own devices.
"Behold, I have told you before." (Matthew 24:25)
"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." (John 14:29)
"Be not afraid of sudden fear, neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh. For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken." (Proverbs 3:25-26)

Everything is going according to Plan.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Scientific or Biblical Truth?

Good evening...

In today's edition of the Ledger & Enquirer, on the editorial pages, the coulmn of leftist pastor James Evans (First Baptist Church, Auburn, Alabama) can be found...Mr. Evans and I have had profound disagreements over the years of his writings...for instance, he has admitted to me through personal correspondance that he preaches from "The Red Words of Jesus" out of the Bible...that most of the Bible is just a book of good stories and that there are errors throughout I have stated to him in the past, either all of the Bible is true or none of it is can I be sure that Jesus is the Son of God, died for my sin, rose from the dead and is coming again if Jonah was not swallowed by the great fish and spit back out onto dry land three days later? In today's story, Mr. Evans prints in full a "letter" signed by a number of "clergy" who state that evolution is a scientific truth that is fully compatible with Biblical truth and if we reject it would be the same as treating this truth as a theory among other theories and that rejecting this truth is to fully embrace scientific ignorance and then to pass that along to our children...I, for one, and even if I am the only one, will stand for Biblical truth and Biblical Truth only! The Word of God says that God is the creator of all life, this universe and the earth that it contains! The Bible tells us this in Colossians 1:16, "For by Him (meaning Jesus)all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
In other words Mr. Evans, Jesus, as God Almighty, created all there didn't just happen by chance as evolutionists would proclaim...Mr. Evans and all those "clergy" who signed this document are all HERETICS of the highest many people have been have been driven away from the love that God has to offer by these lies from the father of all lies that evolution is true? I shudder to think of those who will stand before God one day and have to answer for that...
Mr. Evans says that nearly every credible scientist knows that the evolutionary theory is true...another lie...The Bible is a book about a relationship that God wanys to have with us...It is not a science book, but what it says about science is true; It is not a history book but what it says about history is true...I am sick and tired of men and women who place themselves in the guise of Christianity but spout off every heresy and anti-God argument that is out there...again, one day God will reach His tolerance level and then judgment will fall...may God have mercy...

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Constitution

Good morning...

The foundational document of our country (aside from the Declaration of Independence)is the Constitution of the United States of America...this document lays the groundwork for our government, who is eligible to serve in what capacity and for how is a document that allows for amending through a process that must be ratified by 38 states of the is a docuemnt that has served us well for over 230 years...some in our land take this document for granted and simply want it to disappear...while others hold it to be a document that our founding fathers envisioned for a country to have true freedom of thought, speech, religious views and to pursue life, liberty and happiness without the big foot of government telling us how to do those things and insisting that "it" knows best...
Since the election of 2008, there have been questions concerning the place of birth of the President, Barrack Hussein Obama, and there is a growing chorus of demands to release his original birth certificate to show that he was really born in enumerate all the questions here would take too much time and there is always the internet to search this out but the fact remains that the "certificate of live birth" placed on the President's campaign website during the campaign and the one that his press secretary continues to insist is legitimate, is NOT legitimate...the fact is that any foreign national could obtain one in 1961 when Obama was born by the simple word of one parent...The problem is that Americans simply want to see the evidence...Americans want to know for certain that the man who holds the most powerful office in the world is legally in that I join multitudes of others who say, "Just release the original long form and get it over with" The following article is from Joseph Fararh and is an excellant piece, I encourage you to read it:

Not the last word on Obama's birth

Posted: August 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

About one thing you can be certain: Any time someone has the audacity to write a column proclaiming it is the "last word" about a subject, it's sure to prompt rebuttals.
On July 30, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal tried his best to put the final nail in the coffin of the "birther" corpse. But rumors of the death of the Barack Obama eligibility story were, as Mark Twain would say, greatly exaggerated.
From his comfortable perch on the south side of Manhattan, Taranto apparently holds the view that so-called "birthers" – a name derisively slapped on all those who believe Obama should simply release his long-form birth certificate for the good of the country and to settle growing doubts about his status as a legal president – are part of a cohesive movement, a monolithic entity, some kind organized conspiracy, if you will.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
"Birthers" are simply people demanding Obama release the only evidence that could possibly provide even a basis for determining whether he was a "natural born citizen" and thus constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House.
Taranto simply can't see the forest for the trees – or, worse, refuses to do so in his desire to ridicule "birthers." For instance, he ignores the fact that Hawaiian laws have permitted foreigners to obtain "certifications of live birth," the document Obama has called his birth certificate. Of course, he must ignore that central fact because it is terribly inconvenient if you are attempting the make the case that the document somehow proves Obama is a legitimate president.
Hawaii's shockingly poor record-keeping also made it possible for babies to be issued "certifications of live birth" with the wrong parents listed and the wrong date of birth. No hospital or physician would need to be listed. No independent witnesses needed to be involved. All that was required by Hawaii to obtain this document was an affidavit by one person claiming to be a parent.
Yet, on that faulty foundation, Taranto is quick to label as lunatics those who dare demand better evidence to meet the critical constitutional test of natural born citizenship.
Please tell me how Americans could ever establish Obama's eligibility without a genuine, long-form birth certificate – the product of meticulous, first-hand eyewitness reporting by a certified physician and hospital staff? How would that be possible, knowing how extremely lax and compromised the Hawaiian state health rules were and are today?
Taranto is satisfied to accept Hawaii's obvious ineptitude in this area and impose its mistakes on the entire country.
He claims the "certification of live birth" is a legal birth certificate and, in fact, "the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues."
That is simply not true.
It may be the only kind of birth certificate Hawaii routinely issues today. But it was not the only kind issued when Obama was born.
The Honolulu Advertiser last week published photographs of two long-form birth certificates issued to twins born in Kapi'olani Medical Center the day after Obama was supposedly born in that hospital. The mother kept them. She wasn't issued "certifications of live birth," a digital document which didn't become the norm in Hawaii until 2001.
And neither is the need for Obama's original long-form birth certificate a matter of routine. This is an extraordinary case. The document, I repeat, is the only basis for determining the eligibility of the president of the United States, since the short form was subject to abuse and error and offered, at the very least, the potential for documenting foreign births as domestic births.
Taranto, like many others determined, for whatever reason, not to know the truth about Obama's birth, never questions the wisdom of the public policy decisions Hawaii has made in concealing vital records even when they represent matters of national security and grave public interest.
Taranto concedes Obama can still retrieve his long-form birth certificate if he cared to do so. But, in his autobiography, Obama strongly suggests he already has one – citing its discovery among personal papers as a critical and defining moment of self-reflection in his life. So, it would be an easy matter for Obama to quell the national debate about his eligibility if, indeed, the long-form document verifies the details found in the short-form document.
"But the real question is: Why should he?" asks Taranto. "The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit."
No basis in principle and no practical benefit?
We're talking about the Constitution here.
We're talking about the legitimacy and integrity of the presidency.
We're talking about the rule of law and the will of the people.
"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii," writes Taranto. "No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof."
It's important to understand Obama is not being accused of a crime. He is not being asked to incriminate himself. He is being asked by millions of Americans to offer up a simple document he claims to possess that could verify his legitimate hold on the presidency. Why won't he do that? And why wouldn't every American, including Taranto, being joining the call for openness and transparency – promises Obama made for his presidency?
Instead, Taranto calls for a witch hunt against "birthers."
There is not a doubt in my mind that if the American people press hard enough and long enough for the release of Obama's birth certificate – not to mention the dozens of other personal papers he is secreting from the public – that we will see it. Obama will either be forced by public pressure to release the document or there will arise a political will to extract it from him.
I want you to try to imagine a similar scenario eight years ago at this same point in George W. Bush's first term. Imagine there was broad concern about whether he was constitutionally eligible to serve. If Bush refused to offer up the critical document that could settle the matter, is there any doubt congressional hearings would have been held? Do you have any doubts many of the same people so incensed about these questions would be organizing marches of protest? Do you have any doubts there would be calls for congressional hearings?
Just recall the uproar over his National Guard duty, if you have any doubts.
This is the nature of an open society – one that encourages free-wheeling debate and public scrutiny of public affairs.
It's worth reminding the world that Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee for the presidency, faced a Senate inquiry over his own eligibility issue. His colleagues found he was constitutionally qualified because he had two parents who were U.S. citizens. Barack Obama didn't. If – and it's admittedly a big if – he wasn't born in Hawaii as he claims and as that deeply flawed evidentiary document suggests, then he is not, by the standards applied to McCain, a legitimate president.
I know that's a scary thought for many Americans. But, as long as that possibility exists, this public concern, this skepticism, this distrust is going to linger and grow. That is not healthy for our country.
I believe most "birthers" only want to know the truth about their president. They want to be sure the Constitution is upheld and honored. Why are those such annoying and antagonizing objectives for so many in the media? I read supposedly objective news accounts claiming that "birthers" insist Obama was born in Kenya. I don't know anyone who insists Obama was born in Kenya. But I do believe that many, if not most, Americans are now uncertain he was born in Hawaii. They are uncertain he is legally, morally and constitutionally qualified for the most important job in the United States.
It's time to remove the uncertainty. It's time to lift the cloud of doubt. It's time to stop the stonewalling. It's time to release the real birth certificate.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Jimmy Carter and The Bible

Some 9 years ago, former President Jimmy Carter announced to the world that he was resigning from the Southern Baptist Convention (one does not resign from the SBC as we are not members of the SBC but rather are in churches that support the SBC by monetarily giving to them). Well Mr. Carter is at it again, but see how Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Lousiville, Ky explains it:

Sorry, President Carter . . . This Argument Falls Flat
Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2009 at 3:26 am ET

For critics of the Southern Baptist Convention, former President Jimmy Carter is the gift that just keeps on giving. Over the last several days, yet another round of news reports has trumpeted the news that the former president has resigned his membership in the Southern Baptist Convention. Almost a decade after he first made this announcement, his repetitive return to this theme set up a new avalanche of news reports. Reports, we might add, that are not news. Adding insult to injury, the reports are about a "resignation" that isn't even a resignation. Try explaining that to the international media.
Back in October of 2000, President Carter sent a letter to some 75,000 Baptists, indicating that he intended to separate himself from the Southern Baptist Convention --- a denomination with which he had historically been associated through church membership, public identification, and personal involvement. He spoke of this as "a painful decision" that was made necessary by the convention's stated convictions on a number of issues. For some years, Mr. Carter had been publicly identified with the more liberal wing of Southern Baptist life. He was well known for holding liberal positions on an entire range of issues that set him at odds with the denomination. The catalyst for his public announcement was the revision of the denomination's confession of faith earlier that year.
Any honest observer will be compelled to clarify that Mr. Carter's action was an exercise in public relations. Individuals are not members of the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is no mechanism for individuals either to join or to resign from the denomination. Local churches indicate their desire to identify with the Southern Baptist Convention through contributing to its causes and declaring themselves to be "in friendly cooperation with" other churches in the fellowship of the convention. As more careful media sources indicated back in October of 2000, President and Mrs. Carter actually remained members of a congregation that is, as The New York Times then explained, "still affiliated with the convention."
Just a few years later, the former president reiterated his desire to separate from the Southern Baptist Convention, producing a series of news reports that rarely referenced the fact that Mr. Carter had made such a public announcement years earlier. Over the last two weeks, the pattern has erupted all over again.
The latest eruption of reports about President Carter's severing of ties with the Southern Baptist Convention came in the aftermath of an article published in the July 12, 2009 edition of The Observer [London]. In this article, Mr. Carter claimed to speak on behalf of "The Elders." The group's website identifies "The Elders" as "an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their collective influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity."
In his article, President Carter reiterated his decision to sever public ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. In his words:
So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
To his credit, President Carter apparently did not claim that this was a new decision or a fresh announcement. Though some media sources jumped on the announcement as "news," others were careful to put his statement in an appropriate historical context. Furthermore, President Carter's reference to the Southern Baptist Convention was not the main point of this article. Instead, his reference to the Southern Baptist Convention introduced his argument that any religious teaching that denies what he construes as full equality for women "is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God."
That, suffice it to say, is a mouthful. This is not a new argument for the former President. But in his article in The Observer he does make some interesting assertions. While acknowledging that he has not been trained "in religion or theology," he went on to argue that "the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths."
All this fits a pattern for which Mr. Carter is now well known. He simply rejects the texts in the Bible that clearly establish different roles for men and women in the church and the home. He dismisses these verses for the simple reason that he also rejects the inerrancy of the Bible.
He may well be the world's most famous Sunday School teacher, but over just the last several years he has publicly expressed his rejection of the belief that persons must come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. He has also stated that his faith would not be shaken if Jesus did not perform some of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament. His denial of biblical inerrancy is not merely theoretical -- he actually operates on the assumption that at least some texts of the Bible are false, untruthful, malignantly oppressive, and thus untrustworthy.
President Carter actually makes no argument for women as pastors. He simply dismisses out of hand what the Christian church has believed for centuries -- and what the vast majority of Christians around the world believe even now. His argument should embarrass any serious person who considers this question, for it is grounded in little more than his own sense of how things ought to be. He makes claims about the Bible that are reckless and irresponsible and historical claims that would make any credible church historian blush. He straightforwardly rejects what he admits some texts of the Bible teach.
Then, he opens and closes his article by citing as his main authority the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. This text, we might note, also declares "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion" as basic human rights. The more important question is this: Does President Carter really believe that he will convince Christians -- Southern Baptist or otherwise -- to see any human statement as holding a higher authority than the Bible? That question, more than anything else, points to the real reason that President Carter and the Southern Baptist Convention have parted ways. The point of division remains the ultimate authority and total truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Get Ready For the Toilet Paper TAX!

Just when we thought the global warming climate change insanity couldn't get any worse comes the news of the...are you ready for this?...Toilet Paper Tax! That's right folks! Our brilliant law-makers have not had enough fun yet taxing you to death through the cap-n-tax bill and they are now introducing legislation to tax toilet paper...I kid you not! The following is the "Fact Sheet for H.R. 3202" submitted by Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon with the appropriate part high-lighted:

Original Co-sponsors: LaTourette (R-OH), Dicks (D-WA), Simpson (R-ID), Petri (R-WI)

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has given our nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a grade of “D-” in their 2009 report card. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s most recent Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis estimates a $534 billion gap between current investment and projected needs over the next 20 years. Last year alone, American communities suffered more than 240,000 water main breaks and saw billions of gallons of overflowing combined sewer systems, causing contamination, property damage, disruptions in the water supply, and massive traffic jams. According to ASCE, an average of six billion gallons of potable water is lost per day in the US because of leaky pipes. This is enough to fill nearly 9,091 Olympic-sized swimming pools!

Our nation’s water infrastructure needs have grown while federal funding for clean water has declined. While the needs are estimated to be over $25 billion a year, appropriations for water infrastructure have averaged just over $2.3 billion a year since 2000. This pushes more and more costs on local governments and ratepayers, whose rates have grown at twice the rate of inflation in recent years. We need new sources of revenue to meet our communities’ water infrastructure and environmental restoration needs. Similar dedicated funding is available for our nation’s transportation systems – it’s time to establish a trust fund to finance water infrastructure.

A Water Protection and Reinvestment Trust Fund, funded by those who contribute to water quality problems and those who use our water systems, will provide a deficit-neutral, consistent and protected source of revenue to help states replace, repair, and rehabilitate critical drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities.

The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act would assess a number of small taxes on a broad base of those who use water and contribute to water pollution. The taxes are designed to be collected at the manufacturer level, so any increased costs to consumers will be minimal. These revenue sources were analyzed in a recent Government Accountability Office report and are expected to raise at least $10 billion a year.
• 4 cent per container excise tax on water-based beverages. These products rely on drinking water as their major input and result in both increased flows and increased waste in our waters.
3% excise tax on items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil: These products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants.
• 0.5% excise tax on pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutical residues found in our nation’s water bodies are an increasing concern for clean and drinking water utilities. A small fee on the industry will support efforts to prevent pharmaceuticals from entering water systems and research into remediation.
• 0.15% tax corporate profits over $4 million. All corporations use drinking and wastewater infrastructure and depend on it functioning to conduct their business. A similar tax was used to fund the Superfund program until it expired in 1995.

Clean Water Act Funding: Almost half of the funding would be distributed as grants and loans through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF). These funds are grants used to capitalize state funds, which then provide loans to publicly owned treatment works for wastewater treatment construction to meet CWA requirements and provide sewage services. The CWSRF would be modernized, consistent with recent legislation passed by the House. The bill would provide additional incentives for green infrastructure and water efficiency as well as provide funding for state efforts to prevent and control pollution. It would require states to provide some of the funding in the form of grants. Additional assistance would be made available for technical assistance to small wastewater treatment facilities.

Safe Drinking Water Act Funding: Over one-third of the funding would be distributed as loans through the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF). Similar to CWSRF funds, these are used by states to provide loans to public water systems for expenditures to facilitate compliance with drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Changes would be made to modernize the DWSRF and provide technical assistance to small communities consistent with the recent authorization passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In addition, funds would be targeted towards larger systems with the worst infrastructure problems. Additional incentives for environmental and fiscal sustainability would be added.

Additional Programs: The remaining funding would support a number of new programs, including:
• Security Upgrades: Grants to states, municipalities, publicly owned treatment works, and community drinking water systems for capital projects to increase security to update a vulnerability assessment, emergency response plan, or site security plan required under the SDWA or any other applicable law. This will help offset the costs of new security requirements currently under consideration in House committees.
• Climate Change and Adaptation: Grants to support efforts by water systems to take actions to increase energy and water efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.
• Sewer Overflow Control: Funding for an existing program to help states and local communities address sewer overflows This is a growing problem in which untreated sewage is released into the environment, contaminating our nation’s waters, degrading water quality and exposing humans to viruses and other pathogens that can cause serious illness. The EPA estimates that more than 850 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and stormwater are released each year into U.S. waters.
• Research, Development, and Technology Demonstration: A new research program within the EPA to develop, demonstrate, and transfer innovative or improved technologies and methods for the treatment, control, transport, and reuse of drinking water and wastewater. It would also create a new system of regional university research centers, based on the successful transportation research centers, to conduct strategic research, education, and outreach for sustainable management of water resources.
• Workforce Development: Funding for existing programs under the CWA and SDWA to provide support for operator training, undergraduate and graduate environmental engineering and natural sciences to ensure that a stable labor force exists to operate and manage water and wastewater treatment utilities.
• Drug Take-Back: A new competitive grant program to support state, local, tribal, and non-profit drug take-back programs to help reduce the presence of pharmaceuticals in water.
• Cost of Service Study: The National Academy of Sciences would study the means by which public water systems and treatment works meet the costs associated with operations, maintenance, capital replacement, and regulatory requirements. This will help the EPA, Congress, and water facilities determine what new approaches might assist in meeting water needs.

• Protect public health by providing the funding communities need to provide safe drinking water and sewer service.
• Restore the environment by providing incentives for green infrastructure that reduces energy use and withstands the impacts of global warming.
• Create jobs by investing in projects to repair and replace aging systems. A $10 billion investment would create between 200,000 and 267,000 new jobs in engineering, construction and other industries.
• Reduce pollution by decreasing the number and severity of combined sewer overflows, increasing funds for state environmental restoration efforts and reducing the amount of pharmaceuticals in our water supply.


• National Association of Clean Water Agencies
• American Rivers
• Clean Water Action
• Associated General Contractors
• American Society of Civil Engineers
• Water & Sewer Distributors of America
• Rural Community Assistance Partnership
• Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment
• American Public Works Association
• National Utility Contractors Association

Monday, July 13, 2009

Getting Rid of the Undesirables?

Whenever I am engaged with someone over the abortion rights question, they always play the "woman's right to choose" card...that women should be allowed to choose whether or not to have a child (of course that choice should be made before engaging in the behavior that causes pregnancy!)...however, over the week-end, we finally have one of the "Elite" to confess what abortion is really all about...Are you ready?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is quoted in the Sunday New York Times (The paper of record) that she believed that abortion was all about getting rid of the segment of the population that we just don't want too much of...What a statement! The real, hidden agenda for abortion all along has been the elimination of the undesirables! Why do you think that they are insisting these days to have medicaid pay for abortions for the poor? If you look at the history of Planned Parenthood, the single largest provider of abortions in this country, you will find an organization that formed in part to get rid of the black population in this country...the irony is that in recent years, Faye Waddelton headed this organization...and she is black!

Abortion is an evil that should be stopped...not through violence! As I have stated on numerous occasions abortion will stop when people's hearts are changed and that comes only through a relationship with Jesus Christ! He alone can change a life and a heart...

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Michael Jackson

Well...what did you expect? Everybody else is writing about or talking about or coming out of the woodwork to comment on...Michael I guess I will give my two cents worth!

Michael Jackson was what we would consider to be a "cultural icon" He has certainly impacted out society and even the world as he was followed literally around the world...through the years, he has had some bizzare chain of events...from the plastic surgeries, to the hanging of children from a balcony...all through the constant lens of an ever prying media...but what is the real story here? The real story here is much deeper...the real story is this:

If Michael Jackson was given the opportunity to speak to the world that is mourning his death right now, for just five minutes, he would cry out for EVERYBODY to accept the Lord Jesus Christ NOW! You see, Michael Jackson knows now the truth of what God has written down for us in His Word...that Jesus Christ IS the only begotten Son of God who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, gave His life on Calvary's cross shedding His blood for the payment for our sin, that we might be redeemed back to God...that is exactly what Michael Jackson would say to YOU Today if he were given the opportunity...

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Climate Change

Good Morning...on the heels of a dreadful "Cap & Trade (Actually TAX would be a better rendering)" Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, comes the following open letter written to Congress from prominant scientists who actually rebut the alarmists message...stay tuned at the end for a sound Biblical response:

Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years'
'Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them'

Wednesday, July 01, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent atmospheric scientists.


You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact


The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.


Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

What Does God Say About All This? Genesis 8:22 says, ""While the earth remains,

Seedtime and harvest,Cold and heat,Winter and summer,And day and night Shall not cease."

Maybe we should listen to God?

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Health Care Nightmare Coming to a Hospital Near You

The Health Care plan being put forth by the administration is currently up for debate and as Christians, we need to be in prayer that the right kind of plan is presented that will be fair for all people and will not further bankrupt our nation, which is where we certainly are headed with all the current spending that is going on...we are certinaly seeing this nation being brought to her knees through financial mismanagement that will usher in the age of the ant-Christ, which I believe will occur very soon...the following article shows us exactly how corrupt and morally bankrupt we truly are...May God have mercy...

The Obamacare horror story you won't hear

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/19/2009 7:20:00 AM

The White House, Democrats and MoveOn liberals are spreading healthcare sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there's one healthcare policy nightmare you won't hear the Obamas hyping. It's a tale of poor minority patient-dumping in Chicago -- with first lady Michelle Obama's fingerprints all over it.
Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois have raised red flags about the outsourcing program run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has nonprofit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care.
Yet, in fiscal year 2007, when Mrs. Obama was employed there, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor -- 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The figure is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in surrounding Cook County.
Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: "Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds."
Don't expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an "Urban Health Initiative," Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to "dramatically improve healthcare for thousands of South Side residents."
In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming "RAAAAAAAAACISM!" at the top of their lungs.
Joe Stephens of The Washington Post wrote, "To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Axelrod's firm (ASK Public Strategies) recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign -- appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party 'validators.' They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications."
Some healthcare experts saw through Mrs. Obama and PR man Axelrod -- yes, the same Axelrod who is now President Obama's senior adviser. But the University of Chicago Medical Center hired ASK Public Strategies to promote Mrs. Obama's initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett -- now a White House senior adviser.
Axelrod's great contribution: re-branding! His firm recommended renaming the initiative after "internal and external respondents expressed the opinion that the word 'urban' is code for 'black' or 'black and poor.' ...Based on the research, consideration should be given to re-branding the initiative." Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.
In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas' community exploded upon learning that a young boy covered by Medicaid had been turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams' mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama's hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics and Tylenol, and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.
I'll guarantee you this: You'll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the first lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the healthcare system.
Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Axelrod's grand plan. The group released a statement expressing "grave concerns that the University of Chicago's policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to 'patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)" -- signed by President Reagan, by the way -- "and reflected an effort to 'cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."
Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

A Quick Glance at Government Run Health Care...

Good Morning...

Many are wondering what Government Run Health Care will look like...the following is an analysis of the Bills making their way through Congress with the Senate version being compared to the House version and a summary at the end...Educate yourself!

Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill
Posted Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, at 10:30 am

Yesterday I posted and described the draft Kennedy-Dodd health care bill. Today I would like to do the same for an outline produced by House Democrats.

Here is a three-page outline of “Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the House of Representatives,” dated yesterday (June 8, 2009).

The three committees are:

The House Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).
The House Energy & Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ).
The House Committee on Education & Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). The Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ).
The document suggests this is a joint product of the three committees and/or their subcommittees. My sense, however, is that it is Speaker Pelosi who is driving the bus. This is in contrast to the Senate, where the committee chairmen (Kennedy/Dodd and Baucus) appear to have the pen, in less well-coordinated efforts.

Kennedy-Dodd and the House bill outline are remarkably similar. Whether this represents House-Senate coordination or parallel thought processes is unclear.

I think the easiest way for me to present the House bill outline is in comparison with the Kennedy-Dodd bill. So here my description from yesterday of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, with today’s comparison to the House bill outline in red. I hope it’s comprehensible and useful this way. If you read yesterday’s post, you can skim the text in black and focus on the new text in blue.

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill and the House bill outline.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
The House bill also contains an individual mandate. The outline is less specific but parallel: “Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship.”

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.
The House bill outline also contains an employer mandate that appears to parallel that in Kennedy-Dodd: “Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers.”

In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?

Like the Kennedy/Dodd bill, the House bill outline would preclude health plans from imposing lifetime or annual limits on benefits: “Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.” This would raise premiums for new policies.

The House bill outline “introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.” I don’t know what this means, but suggest keeping an eye on it.

A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.
Same: “… by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements…”. It also contains this addition relative to Kennedy-Dodd: “… with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans.”

But note the “various levels of standardized benefits.” This appears to be more expansive government control of health plan design than in the Kennedy-Dodd draft.

Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
This is unspecified in the House bill outline. We’ll have to wait to see legislative language. The House bill would require plans to “waive cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages.”

A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.

The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.
The House bill outline is silent on this.

Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.

Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
The House bill outline is silent on guaranteed issue and renewal. I’m going to make an educated guess that the bill includes these provisions as part of “other discriminatory practices,” and they have just left them out of the outline. Given the philosophy behind this outline (with which I disagree), it would be a striking omission. But for now, the outline says nothing specific on these topics.

The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.
The House bill outline “expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations,” so we have no specifics other than that there’s an expansion. I cannot tell if this is expanding eligibility or benefits. The outline also “improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid.” I assume this means the bill would expand the Federal share paid of each dollar spent by a State Medicaid program on primary care, rather than the Federal government actually mandating specific payment rates to be implemented by States. Federal micromanagement of specific Medicaid provider payment rates was eliminated in the mid 1990’s.

People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.
The House bill outline has a sliding scale up to 400% of poverty. If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $88,000 would get small subsidy.

People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.
The House bill outline is not specific on this point. I would not expect it to be – this is something you can tell only from legislative language.

There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.
The House bill outline “creates a new public health insurance within the Exchange … the public health insurance option competes on ‘level field’ with private insurers in the Exchange.” There are no specifics on how the public plan would work, or on provider payment rates.

Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.
The House calls it an Exchange rather than a Gateway. While the Senate bill would tell each State, “Create a Gateway or we’ll create one for you,” the House bill outline says to each State, “We’re creating a single new national Exchange. You’re in it unless you develop your own State or Regional Exchange.”

Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.
The House bill outline appears to parallel the Kennedy-Dodd draft: “Phases-in requirements to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.” This means that new plans will be more expensive than old plans. It also means they’re creating a bifurcated system with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences for employment flexibility.

The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
The House bill outline lists specific topics for changes to Medicare reimbursement:

Changing (how?) the Medicare reimbursement for doctors, called the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR).
“Increasing reimbursement for primary care providers”
“Improving” the Medicare drug program. I won’t be surprised if, when I see the specifics, I disagree that their changes are “improvements.” In the past this has meant having the federal government mandate specific prices for drugs.
Cutting payments to Medicare Advantage plans.
Expanding low-income subsidies for seniors and eliminating cost-sharing for all preventive services in Medicare.

The House bill outline also uses positive language to describe things that might generate budgetary savings from Medicare and/or Medicaid. The hospital readmissions point is specific. The first two points could increase or decrease federal spending, depending on the specifics.

“Use federal health programs … to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities.”
“Adopt innovative payment approaches and promote[s] better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations.”
“Attack the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.”

The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates. (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.” (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
I strongly oppose the Kennedy-Dodd bill and the House Tri-Committee bill.

If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Jim Capretta’s blog Diagnosis.