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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
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:
H.R. 3202 - THE WATER PROTECTION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
REP. EARL BLUMENAUER
Original Co-sponsors: LaTourette (R-OH), Dicks (D-WA), Simpson (R-ID), Petri (R-WI)
THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION:
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!
THE TRUST FUND:
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 REVENUE SOURCES:
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.
HOW IT WOULD WORK:
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.
THE WATER PROTECTION AND REINVESTMENT ACT WILL:
• 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.
THE WATER PROTECTION AND REINVESTMENT ACT IS SUPPORTED BY:
• 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
H.R. 3202 - THE WATER PROTECTION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
REP. EARL BLUMENAUER
Original Co-sponsors: LaTourette (R-OH), Dicks (D-WA), Simpson (R-ID), Petri (R-WI)
THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION:
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!
THE TRUST FUND:
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 REVENUE SOURCES:
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.
HOW IT WOULD WORK:
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.
THE WATER PROTECTION AND REINVESTMENT ACT WILL:
• 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.
THE WATER PROTECTION AND REINVESTMENT ACT IS SUPPORTED BY:
• 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...
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 Jackson...so 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...
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.
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
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
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
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.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
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
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU
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?
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.
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
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
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
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.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
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
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU
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.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
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.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Jesus is Coming...Soon!
In recent days, the so-called religious left have increased their chatter about how people who believe in end-times prophecies are a real danger to peace in this world. The following article reveals to just what extent this is going on and shows us just how close we are to the coming of the King!
Excerpts from Lighthousetrailsresearch.com
Brian McLaren wants end-time believing Christians "robustly" confronted
May 4, 2009
Source article: HERE
INDEX
of previous reports from Lighthouse-Trails
Home
"[B]eloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" II Peter 3:1-4
If you are a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's inspired Word and believe that Jesus Christ will be coming again, you are being marginalized. And you might not even know it. It may surprise you to know where this marginalization is coming from. We're not speaking of the world today . . . we are talking about people who say they are Christians and who happen to be very influential. In fact, one of them, Rick Warren, was just named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the entire world.1
In an April 2009 article in Sojourner's magazine by emerging church leader, Brian McLaren, McLaren clearly has targeted Christians. But not just any Christians. McLaren is talking about Christians who believe Jesus Christ is coming back again, suggesting that these type of Christians are the reason there is no peace in the Middle East. He says what these end-time believing Christians are doing is "terrible," "deadly," and "distorted."
McLaren says that he grew up with a dispensational view (the belief that Jesus Christ will return and establish his kingdom on earth) but has come to realize this view is "morally and ethically harmful." He likens this belief system to racism in the 50s and 60s and says:
"These doctrinal formulations often use a bogus end-of-the-world scenario to create a kind of death-wish for World War III, which -- unless it is confronted more robustly by the rest of us--could too easily create a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of occultist Alice Bailey or New Age author and futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard knows that they believe this very thing. In fact, McLaren is sounding more and more like them all the time, and his article in Sojourners is further proof of that.
It isn't just Bible-believing Christians who McLaren is upset with - he's also angry about Israel and the very idea that she is a special nation in the eyes of God. This is why he names Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists in particularly, because they tend to be two groups who hold fast to the belief that Israel is indeed a special nation to the Lord.
It is ironic that just a week ago, the House of Representatives passed the HR1913 hate crimes bill, which is supposed to deter hateful behavior toward others. Here, McLaren, who was chosen to be an advisor to Obama (a strong proponent of hate crime legislation), is speaking so hatefully about those who hold to biblical beliefs saying they must be robustly confronted by "the rest of us" [all human beings except the biblical ones].
Others have joined McLaren in this effort to silence and marginalize biblical Christians. Rick Warren's chief apologist (and we were told, a staff member at Saddleback) recently posted an article on the Internet that said ministries that defend the faith (he referenced Lighthouse Trails) were like mentally unstable cultists, "who are not normal people, average complainers, critics and typical dissidents who are generally unhappy about life itself . . . they are deadly." (Please contact Saddleback Church if you wish to verify this: (949) 609-8000.)
Tony Campolo, in his book Speaking My Mind, says that "'rigid' Christians who believe in the possibility of Jesus' soon return" are "the real problem for the whole world." According to Campolo, they are to blame for wars, and a host of other evils in the world. This is what Alice Bailey and Barbara Marx Hubbard believe--and their obvious hostility towards believers shouts out from the pages of their writings.
There are others too who speak in derogatory language about Christians who believe Titus 2:13, which is: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." In Mark Driscoll's book Vintage Jesus, he ridicules Christians who believe there will be an Armageddon and a rapture (pp. 44, 157).
Perhaps one of the more serious attacks on Christians waiting for Christ's return (serious primarily because of his huge influence) comes from Rick Warren where he states in The Purpose Driven Life that those who study Bible prophecy are not fit for the kingdom of God. Most readers may have missed this because of the way the passage is organized, but if one studies this carefully, with a Bible by their side, it is not difficult to see. Roger Oakland explains:
"Warren tells readers to think about something other than Bible prophecy: 'If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy.'
"Warren ends this section of his book by stating that Satan would have you 'sidetracked from your mission' and by quoting Jesus out of context, Warren says, 'Anyone who lets himself be distracted [by studying Bible prophecy] from the work I plan for him is not fit for the kingdom of God' (Living Bible). But Jesus was not referring to His return when He made that statement, which in the King James Version says: 'No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God' (Luke 9:62). The Purpose Driven kingdom of God leaves no room for Bible prophecy, and in fact, condemns those who study it. The apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had a different view. He writes:
'We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.' (II Peter 1:19)
"Christians are called to witness and be watchmen. No Scripture exists that tells us to ignore the events that have been pointed out as signposts indicating the return of Jesus. If we do, we might be like the foolish virgins who fell asleep waiting for the bridegroom" (Matthew 25:1-13).(from Faith Undone, pp. 154-157
In Warren Smith's book, Reinventing Jesus Christ, Smith discusses something Barbara Marx Hubbard calls the Selection Process. This is a process that New Agers believe in which Armageddon will only have to happen if those who believe in it (biblical Christians) remain on the earth for thus there would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. She believes, as does Alice Bailey (the woman who coined the term New Age), that the world cannot evolve, and there cannot be peace until it is rid of these kind of people. If it is, then there can be what is termed an Alternative to Armageddon. Sound far-fetched? Just keep in mind that Barbara Marx Hubbard is a respected author -- in fact, she was instrumental in the early stages of what is now the lobbying group for the soon-to-be Department of Peace that over 60 Congressmen are supporting.
We believe that this effort to put labels like cultist on believers will only grow. Another example is emerging church writer Thomas Hohstadt, who asked in a recent article: "How Do We Know We Are Not in a Cult?" He answered this question by basically saying that you are a cult if you believe you have all the answers and if you believe truth can be contained or absolutely defined. You see, in emerging spirituality doubt and uncertainty are exalted, and the opposite "virtues,"--certainty and faith -- are condemned. Incredible as it seems, those who stand on the Word of God will, in the end, be called evil, deadly, and cultish.
The growing hostility against Bible-believing Christians continues. And yet, in Matthew 24:6, Jesus comforts us with these words:
"[S]ee that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
Let us remember and take heed to the words Jesus told his disciples:
"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (John 9:4). As believers we will stand for the truth, but we will continue to love those who persecute. We are inspired by the many saints who have gone before and courageously, by His grace and strength, stood. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast." (II Thessalonians 2:15)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source article: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1465&more=1&c=1"
Excerpts from Lighthousetrailsresearch.com
Brian McLaren wants end-time believing Christians "robustly" confronted
May 4, 2009
Source article: HERE
INDEX
of previous reports from Lighthouse-Trails
Home
"[B]eloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" II Peter 3:1-4
If you are a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's inspired Word and believe that Jesus Christ will be coming again, you are being marginalized. And you might not even know it. It may surprise you to know where this marginalization is coming from. We're not speaking of the world today . . . we are talking about people who say they are Christians and who happen to be very influential. In fact, one of them, Rick Warren, was just named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the entire world.1
In an April 2009 article in Sojourner's magazine by emerging church leader, Brian McLaren, McLaren clearly has targeted Christians. But not just any Christians. McLaren is talking about Christians who believe Jesus Christ is coming back again, suggesting that these type of Christians are the reason there is no peace in the Middle East. He says what these end-time believing Christians are doing is "terrible," "deadly," and "distorted."
McLaren says that he grew up with a dispensational view (the belief that Jesus Christ will return and establish his kingdom on earth) but has come to realize this view is "morally and ethically harmful." He likens this belief system to racism in the 50s and 60s and says:
"These doctrinal formulations often use a bogus end-of-the-world scenario to create a kind of death-wish for World War III, which -- unless it is confronted more robustly by the rest of us--could too easily create a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of occultist Alice Bailey or New Age author and futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard knows that they believe this very thing. In fact, McLaren is sounding more and more like them all the time, and his article in Sojourners is further proof of that.
It isn't just Bible-believing Christians who McLaren is upset with - he's also angry about Israel and the very idea that she is a special nation in the eyes of God. This is why he names Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists in particularly, because they tend to be two groups who hold fast to the belief that Israel is indeed a special nation to the Lord.
It is ironic that just a week ago, the House of Representatives passed the HR1913 hate crimes bill, which is supposed to deter hateful behavior toward others. Here, McLaren, who was chosen to be an advisor to Obama (a strong proponent of hate crime legislation), is speaking so hatefully about those who hold to biblical beliefs saying they must be robustly confronted by "the rest of us" [all human beings except the biblical ones].
Others have joined McLaren in this effort to silence and marginalize biblical Christians. Rick Warren's chief apologist (and we were told, a staff member at Saddleback) recently posted an article on the Internet that said ministries that defend the faith (he referenced Lighthouse Trails) were like mentally unstable cultists, "who are not normal people, average complainers, critics and typical dissidents who are generally unhappy about life itself . . . they are deadly." (Please contact Saddleback Church if you wish to verify this: (949) 609-8000.)
Tony Campolo, in his book Speaking My Mind, says that "'rigid' Christians who believe in the possibility of Jesus' soon return" are "the real problem for the whole world." According to Campolo, they are to blame for wars, and a host of other evils in the world. This is what Alice Bailey and Barbara Marx Hubbard believe--and their obvious hostility towards believers shouts out from the pages of their writings.
There are others too who speak in derogatory language about Christians who believe Titus 2:13, which is: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." In Mark Driscoll's book Vintage Jesus, he ridicules Christians who believe there will be an Armageddon and a rapture (pp. 44, 157).
Perhaps one of the more serious attacks on Christians waiting for Christ's return (serious primarily because of his huge influence) comes from Rick Warren where he states in The Purpose Driven Life that those who study Bible prophecy are not fit for the kingdom of God. Most readers may have missed this because of the way the passage is organized, but if one studies this carefully, with a Bible by their side, it is not difficult to see. Roger Oakland explains:
"Warren tells readers to think about something other than Bible prophecy: 'If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy.'
"Warren ends this section of his book by stating that Satan would have you 'sidetracked from your mission' and by quoting Jesus out of context, Warren says, 'Anyone who lets himself be distracted [by studying Bible prophecy] from the work I plan for him is not fit for the kingdom of God' (Living Bible). But Jesus was not referring to His return when He made that statement, which in the King James Version says: 'No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God' (Luke 9:62). The Purpose Driven kingdom of God leaves no room for Bible prophecy, and in fact, condemns those who study it. The apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had a different view. He writes:
'We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.' (II Peter 1:19)
"Christians are called to witness and be watchmen. No Scripture exists that tells us to ignore the events that have been pointed out as signposts indicating the return of Jesus. If we do, we might be like the foolish virgins who fell asleep waiting for the bridegroom" (Matthew 25:1-13).(from Faith Undone, pp. 154-157
In Warren Smith's book, Reinventing Jesus Christ, Smith discusses something Barbara Marx Hubbard calls the Selection Process. This is a process that New Agers believe in which Armageddon will only have to happen if those who believe in it (biblical Christians) remain on the earth for thus there would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. She believes, as does Alice Bailey (the woman who coined the term New Age), that the world cannot evolve, and there cannot be peace until it is rid of these kind of people. If it is, then there can be what is termed an Alternative to Armageddon. Sound far-fetched? Just keep in mind that Barbara Marx Hubbard is a respected author -- in fact, she was instrumental in the early stages of what is now the lobbying group for the soon-to-be Department of Peace that over 60 Congressmen are supporting.
We believe that this effort to put labels like cultist on believers will only grow. Another example is emerging church writer Thomas Hohstadt, who asked in a recent article: "How Do We Know We Are Not in a Cult?" He answered this question by basically saying that you are a cult if you believe you have all the answers and if you believe truth can be contained or absolutely defined. You see, in emerging spirituality doubt and uncertainty are exalted, and the opposite "virtues,"--certainty and faith -- are condemned. Incredible as it seems, those who stand on the Word of God will, in the end, be called evil, deadly, and cultish.
The growing hostility against Bible-believing Christians continues. And yet, in Matthew 24:6, Jesus comforts us with these words:
"[S]ee that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
Let us remember and take heed to the words Jesus told his disciples:
"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (John 9:4). As believers we will stand for the truth, but we will continue to love those who persecute. We are inspired by the many saints who have gone before and courageously, by His grace and strength, stood. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast." (II Thessalonians 2:15)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source article: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1465&more=1&c=1"
Urgent!
From The Family Research Council:
President Obama, fresh from a government takeover of General Motors, now has his sights set on your medical coverage. On Saturday, he told Congress it was "time to deliver" on his massive health care overhaul. One version of the President's plan, crafted by Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was circulated throughout the Hill on Friday. In it, all Americans are guaranteed some form of basic health care, and employers are ordered to provide coverage--or else. Of course the biggest hiccup is that Kennedy's committee has no idea how Congress would pay for such a plan, particularly since the U.S. is already borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends.
FRC's chief complaint with ObamaCare, apart from the trillions it would cost, is that this plan would force taxpayers to provide abortion coverage for the first time in U.S. history. When I met with a series of Senators last week, they too were concerned that the President wants to make "reproductive health care," including abortion, an essential part of his government-controlled system.
While the administration would force you to pay for abortions, it also leaves relatively no options for those faced with having to perform or promote them. The current plan lacks any clear conscience protections for medical workers, leaving the health care field exposed to even greater attacks. If the bill refuses to address the freedom of conscience, more of our doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will be forced to choose between their convictions and their careers.
President Obama, fresh from a government takeover of General Motors, now has his sights set on your medical coverage. On Saturday, he told Congress it was "time to deliver" on his massive health care overhaul. One version of the President's plan, crafted by Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was circulated throughout the Hill on Friday. In it, all Americans are guaranteed some form of basic health care, and employers are ordered to provide coverage--or else. Of course the biggest hiccup is that Kennedy's committee has no idea how Congress would pay for such a plan, particularly since the U.S. is already borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends.
FRC's chief complaint with ObamaCare, apart from the trillions it would cost, is that this plan would force taxpayers to provide abortion coverage for the first time in U.S. history. When I met with a series of Senators last week, they too were concerned that the President wants to make "reproductive health care," including abortion, an essential part of his government-controlled system.
While the administration would force you to pay for abortions, it also leaves relatively no options for those faced with having to perform or promote them. The current plan lacks any clear conscience protections for medical workers, leaving the health care field exposed to even greater attacks. If the bill refuses to address the freedom of conscience, more of our doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will be forced to choose between their convictions and their careers.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Double Standards
Good Morning...The way that people are treated in this country by our news media and even the current administration is and for sometime now has been one of double standards...it has been really brought home by the recent treatmenst of the killer of Dr. George Tiller and the killer of the Army recruiters in Arkansas in the very next day...the following is an article by Michelle Malkin that makes for an interesting read:
Climate of hate, world of double standards
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/3/2009 10:05:00 AM
When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller of Kansas versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.
Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian, anti-government and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruitment center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American.
Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.
President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climate of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News in reporting Tiller's activities.
By contrast, Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Pvt. William Long dead and 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon -- more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark. -- Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.
But Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
Why the silence? Politically and religiously motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase "lone shooter" is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild -- think convicted "Jeep Jihadist" Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq, who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter -- but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence.
Even Jeffrey Goldberg of the left-leaning Atlantic magazine noticed the double standards. He called attention to a National Public Radio report on the military recruiter attack that failed to mention the religion and anti-military animus of the suspect. Wrote Goldberg: "Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam. How is the public served by this kind of silence? The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long?"
The truth is that the "climate of hate" doesn't have just one hemisphere. But you won't hear the Council on American-Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks -- including convicted fragging killer Hasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle, and Semi Osman.
You won't hear about the escalating war on military recruitment centers on the op-ed pages of The New York Times -- from vandalism to obstruction to Molotov cocktail attacks on campus stations across the country; to the shutdown of a Pittsburgh military recruitment office by zealots holding signs that read "Recruiters are Child Predators"; to the prolonged harassment campaign against the Marine recruiting center in Berkeley, where Code Pink protesters called America soldiers assassins; to the bomb blast at the Times Square recruiting center last March.
And you'll certainly hear little about the most recent left-wing calls to violence by a Playboy magazine writer who published a vulgar list of conservative female writers and commentators he said he'd like to rape (the obscene slang word he used is not printable). The list was hyped by the magazine's publicity team and light-heartedly promoted by mainstream publications such as Politico.com (founded by Washington Post reporters).
Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the "climate of hate" to do their jobs with both eyes open?
Climate of hate, world of double standards
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/3/2009 10:05:00 AM
When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller of Kansas versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.
Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian, anti-government and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruitment center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American.
Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.
President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climate of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News in reporting Tiller's activities.
By contrast, Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Pvt. William Long dead and 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon -- more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark. -- Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.
But Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
Why the silence? Politically and religiously motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase "lone shooter" is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild -- think convicted "Jeep Jihadist" Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq, who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter -- but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence.
Even Jeffrey Goldberg of the left-leaning Atlantic magazine noticed the double standards. He called attention to a National Public Radio report on the military recruiter attack that failed to mention the religion and anti-military animus of the suspect. Wrote Goldberg: "Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam. How is the public served by this kind of silence? The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long?"
The truth is that the "climate of hate" doesn't have just one hemisphere. But you won't hear the Council on American-Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks -- including convicted fragging killer Hasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle, and Semi Osman.
You won't hear about the escalating war on military recruitment centers on the op-ed pages of The New York Times -- from vandalism to obstruction to Molotov cocktail attacks on campus stations across the country; to the shutdown of a Pittsburgh military recruitment office by zealots holding signs that read "Recruiters are Child Predators"; to the prolonged harassment campaign against the Marine recruiting center in Berkeley, where Code Pink protesters called America soldiers assassins; to the bomb blast at the Times Square recruiting center last March.
And you'll certainly hear little about the most recent left-wing calls to violence by a Playboy magazine writer who published a vulgar list of conservative female writers and commentators he said he'd like to rape (the obscene slang word he used is not printable). The list was hyped by the magazine's publicity team and light-heartedly promoted by mainstream publications such as Politico.com (founded by Washington Post reporters).
Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the "climate of hate" to do their jobs with both eyes open?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Dr. Tiller
Good Morning...
On Sunday morning, May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in Kansas. You may be asking why is his murder, and yes, it was murder, is so note worthy. Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of doctors in this country who was willing to perform late-term abortions. He was indeed an evil man who personally killed untold numbers of human beings within the womb of their mothers. However, and let me be perfectly clear here, the murder of Dr. Tiller WAS WRONG! In any civilized society, we are forbidden from taking the law into our own hands. God has placed the civil authority in power as His instrument for the carrying out of justice. Even when that authority fails to bring about justice, even when that authority fails to protect the most innocent and helpless among us, we do not have the right to kill abortion doctors....
Last night I was watching some of the liberal talk shows on the liberal MSNBC network to see the reactions coming from them and without fail, they continued to talk about extremists Christians who continue to foment violence on doctors of abortion, clinics where abortions are performed and so forth in an effort to intimdate them into stopping their work. What bothered me the most is the thinking that we must kill in order to stop abortions, which some of the groups mentioned were advocating...as I went to bed last night, the Lord would not let me sleep until this posting was formulated within my heart and mind...and here is that result:
If you are part of some group that believes that we must kill abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics, STOP IT NOW! Do you not realize what damage you are doing to the cause of Jesus Christ? Do you not realize how many people will never give place to a hearing of the good news that Jesus saves because of what you are doing? On the one hand, there are multitudes of ministries who are trying to meet peoples needs and share that good news with them, but every time something like this happens, we are painted with the same brush...for every step forward we make, this action knocks us back several...and on the other hand, we have people who are mistakenly believing that they must meet the violence that occurs in the womb with killing and bombing...My mother used to always say, "Two wrongs do not make a right" and truer words were never spoken...I pray with all my heart that this land will be healed and turn to God before it is too late, but the only way that will happen is through Jesus Christ touching hearts and changing them, but without a hearing...that will not happen...
One of my favorite theologians is Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who wrote a tremendous piece on this event:
A Wicked Deed in Wichita -- A Test for the Pro-Life Movement
Posted: Monday, June 01, 2009 at 3:58 am ET
The cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday morning presents the pro-life movement in America with a crucial moral test -- will we condemn this murder in unqualified terms?
For many years, Dr. George Tiller has represented the horrific reality of the abortion industry in this nation. Infamously known to the pro-life movement in America, Tiller was known as "Tiller the Killer" because of his well-known willingness to perform late-term abortions almost no other doctor in the nation would perform. Because of Dr. George Tiller, Wichita became the destination of choice for women seeking abortions in the late third trimester.
In 1993 Tiller was shot in both arms by an assailant. His clinic was regularly protested and was once bombed. Tiller had many brushes with the law, and just weeks ago he was acquitted of charges that he had colluded with another physician to illegally justify late-term abortions.
George Tiller was shot to death Sunday morning as he was serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. Witnesses said that a lone assailant entered the church, shot Dr. Tiller with a single shot, threatened two others, and then fled the scene. A suspect was arrested hours later. Wichita police said that the unnamed suspect would likely face multiple charges as early as Monday.
Violence in response to the horror of abortion is rare, but not new. According to some news reports, Dr. Tiller was the fifth physician to be murdered by abortion opponents. In other cases, abortion clinics have been bombed and workers have been hurt or killed.
Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence. After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn. We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.
We make these arguments because we know they are true. Abortion is murder. What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit. Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.
But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal -- not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.
We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence. We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities. The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy. This is not merely a legal technicality -- it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.
The Christian church has been forced by historical necessity to think through these issues again and again. The church has reached a basic moral consensus on issues of violence and governmental obedience, and this consensus requires that Christian citizens work within legal, judicial, and political means to persuade governing authorities concerning what is good, right, just, and honoring to God. Those who operate outside of this consensus and perform acts of violence are rightly understood to arrogate authority to themselves in a way that violates not only the laws of men but the law of God. Civil disobedience may be justified so long as the Christian is willing to suffer at the hands of the governing authorities, but is not justified if the citizen employs violence against the state or against other citizens.
In the case of Dr. George Tiller, the governing authorities failed again and again to fulfill their responsibility to protect all citizens, including those yet unborn. The law is dishonoring to God in its disrespect for human life. The law failed to bring George Tiller to account for what should have been seen as crimes against humanity. But this failure does not authorize others to act in the place of the government, much less in the place of God. The government must now act to prosecute and punish the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.
In October of 1859, John Brown led a violent attack upon the United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. A radical abolitionist, Brown had already proved himself capable of violence for his cause. In 1856 he had led a gang that brutally killed several pro-slavery figures in Kansas. The raid on Harpers Ferry led to more deaths before Brown and his surviving rebels were arrested, charged with treason, and executed.
When John Brown was arrested, Henry David Thoreau defended the man and his violence, asking: "Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? Or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good?"
Those are the very questions some are tempted to ask now, but these weighty questions cannot justify violence in the name of an honorable cause. Thoreau was right about the fact that the laws allowing slavery in the United States were immoral and unjustifiable. John Brown was right when he claimed that slavery was a blight upon the nation's conscience -- a wrong that had to be ended. Brown's logic led him to treason, and he was found guilty in a court of law and punished. Thoreau would refer to Brown as an "angel of light," but Thoreau never had to live with the consequences of his own attempt to justify murder, nor did he ever acknowledge the true character of the man.
The pro-life movement in America must not wage war against abortion by following the example of John Brown. Nor can we allow ourselves the luxury of the logic of defending the indefensible along the lines of Thoreau. We must confront this great evil of abortion from a higher plane, and know that the battle is ultimately in God's hands.
Murder is murder. The law rightly affirms that the killing of Dr. George Tiller is murder. In this we must agree. We cannot rest until the law also recognizes the killing of the unborn as murder. The killing of Dr. George Tiller makes that challenge all the more difficult.
On Sunday morning, May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in Kansas. You may be asking why is his murder, and yes, it was murder, is so note worthy. Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of doctors in this country who was willing to perform late-term abortions. He was indeed an evil man who personally killed untold numbers of human beings within the womb of their mothers. However, and let me be perfectly clear here, the murder of Dr. Tiller WAS WRONG! In any civilized society, we are forbidden from taking the law into our own hands. God has placed the civil authority in power as His instrument for the carrying out of justice. Even when that authority fails to bring about justice, even when that authority fails to protect the most innocent and helpless among us, we do not have the right to kill abortion doctors....
Last night I was watching some of the liberal talk shows on the liberal MSNBC network to see the reactions coming from them and without fail, they continued to talk about extremists Christians who continue to foment violence on doctors of abortion, clinics where abortions are performed and so forth in an effort to intimdate them into stopping their work. What bothered me the most is the thinking that we must kill in order to stop abortions, which some of the groups mentioned were advocating...as I went to bed last night, the Lord would not let me sleep until this posting was formulated within my heart and mind...and here is that result:
If you are part of some group that believes that we must kill abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics, STOP IT NOW! Do you not realize what damage you are doing to the cause of Jesus Christ? Do you not realize how many people will never give place to a hearing of the good news that Jesus saves because of what you are doing? On the one hand, there are multitudes of ministries who are trying to meet peoples needs and share that good news with them, but every time something like this happens, we are painted with the same brush...for every step forward we make, this action knocks us back several...and on the other hand, we have people who are mistakenly believing that they must meet the violence that occurs in the womb with killing and bombing...My mother used to always say, "Two wrongs do not make a right" and truer words were never spoken...I pray with all my heart that this land will be healed and turn to God before it is too late, but the only way that will happen is through Jesus Christ touching hearts and changing them, but without a hearing...that will not happen...
One of my favorite theologians is Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who wrote a tremendous piece on this event:
A Wicked Deed in Wichita -- A Test for the Pro-Life Movement
Posted: Monday, June 01, 2009 at 3:58 am ET
The cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday morning presents the pro-life movement in America with a crucial moral test -- will we condemn this murder in unqualified terms?
For many years, Dr. George Tiller has represented the horrific reality of the abortion industry in this nation. Infamously known to the pro-life movement in America, Tiller was known as "Tiller the Killer" because of his well-known willingness to perform late-term abortions almost no other doctor in the nation would perform. Because of Dr. George Tiller, Wichita became the destination of choice for women seeking abortions in the late third trimester.
In 1993 Tiller was shot in both arms by an assailant. His clinic was regularly protested and was once bombed. Tiller had many brushes with the law, and just weeks ago he was acquitted of charges that he had colluded with another physician to illegally justify late-term abortions.
George Tiller was shot to death Sunday morning as he was serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. Witnesses said that a lone assailant entered the church, shot Dr. Tiller with a single shot, threatened two others, and then fled the scene. A suspect was arrested hours later. Wichita police said that the unnamed suspect would likely face multiple charges as early as Monday.
Violence in response to the horror of abortion is rare, but not new. According to some news reports, Dr. Tiller was the fifth physician to be murdered by abortion opponents. In other cases, abortion clinics have been bombed and workers have been hurt or killed.
Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence. After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn. We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.
We make these arguments because we know they are true. Abortion is murder. What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit. Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.
But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal -- not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.
We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence. We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities. The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy. This is not merely a legal technicality -- it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.
The Christian church has been forced by historical necessity to think through these issues again and again. The church has reached a basic moral consensus on issues of violence and governmental obedience, and this consensus requires that Christian citizens work within legal, judicial, and political means to persuade governing authorities concerning what is good, right, just, and honoring to God. Those who operate outside of this consensus and perform acts of violence are rightly understood to arrogate authority to themselves in a way that violates not only the laws of men but the law of God. Civil disobedience may be justified so long as the Christian is willing to suffer at the hands of the governing authorities, but is not justified if the citizen employs violence against the state or against other citizens.
In the case of Dr. George Tiller, the governing authorities failed again and again to fulfill their responsibility to protect all citizens, including those yet unborn. The law is dishonoring to God in its disrespect for human life. The law failed to bring George Tiller to account for what should have been seen as crimes against humanity. But this failure does not authorize others to act in the place of the government, much less in the place of God. The government must now act to prosecute and punish the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.
In October of 1859, John Brown led a violent attack upon the United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. A radical abolitionist, Brown had already proved himself capable of violence for his cause. In 1856 he had led a gang that brutally killed several pro-slavery figures in Kansas. The raid on Harpers Ferry led to more deaths before Brown and his surviving rebels were arrested, charged with treason, and executed.
When John Brown was arrested, Henry David Thoreau defended the man and his violence, asking: "Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? Or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good?"
Those are the very questions some are tempted to ask now, but these weighty questions cannot justify violence in the name of an honorable cause. Thoreau was right about the fact that the laws allowing slavery in the United States were immoral and unjustifiable. John Brown was right when he claimed that slavery was a blight upon the nation's conscience -- a wrong that had to be ended. Brown's logic led him to treason, and he was found guilty in a court of law and punished. Thoreau would refer to Brown as an "angel of light," but Thoreau never had to live with the consequences of his own attempt to justify murder, nor did he ever acknowledge the true character of the man.
The pro-life movement in America must not wage war against abortion by following the example of John Brown. Nor can we allow ourselves the luxury of the logic of defending the indefensible along the lines of Thoreau. We must confront this great evil of abortion from a higher plane, and know that the battle is ultimately in God's hands.
Murder is murder. The law rightly affirms that the killing of Dr. George Tiller is murder. In this we must agree. We cannot rest until the law also recognizes the killing of the unborn as murder. The killing of Dr. George Tiller makes that challenge all the more difficult.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Supreme Court
Good Afternoon...
In recent days, Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court, announced his retirement...the President, eagar to make his mark on the Court (as all Presidents are) has named as his choice to succeed Souter, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Court of Appeals in New York...She was enthusiastically endorsed by the two current Senators from that state...Now, in considering who should or should not be appointed, we, conservative Christian believers, must keep in mind that the President is allowed to nominate whomever he pleases...we certainly could not expect the President to nominate someone like Chief Justice Roberts or another Justice Anthony Scalia...we must understand that coming in, this President will appoint Judges whom he believes will be just as liberal as he is and one who holds as much disdain for the U.S. Constitution as he does...he made it clear leading up to this nomination that he wanted someone who will have "empathy" in making decisions for all those whose voices are not being heard...the problem with that line of thinking Mr. President is that we are a nation of laws and the law is supposed to be color blind and not show any bias towards anyone...this brings me back to Judge Sotomayor...she is quoted as saying that she would hope that a Laitina Woman, with the life experiences that she has had, would come to a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life...I can only imagine what kind of uproar we would hear if a white male judge had said the same thing about his qualifications!
I imagine that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed as our friendly Republican Senators will seat on their hands as usual and watch this travesty play out...We can only hope that what happened to President George H.W. Bush when he appointed Souter happens to Obama when naming his replacement....
Even So, Come Quickly Lord Jesus!
In recent days, Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court, announced his retirement...the President, eagar to make his mark on the Court (as all Presidents are) has named as his choice to succeed Souter, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Court of Appeals in New York...She was enthusiastically endorsed by the two current Senators from that state...Now, in considering who should or should not be appointed, we, conservative Christian believers, must keep in mind that the President is allowed to nominate whomever he pleases...we certainly could not expect the President to nominate someone like Chief Justice Roberts or another Justice Anthony Scalia...we must understand that coming in, this President will appoint Judges whom he believes will be just as liberal as he is and one who holds as much disdain for the U.S. Constitution as he does...he made it clear leading up to this nomination that he wanted someone who will have "empathy" in making decisions for all those whose voices are not being heard...the problem with that line of thinking Mr. President is that we are a nation of laws and the law is supposed to be color blind and not show any bias towards anyone...this brings me back to Judge Sotomayor...she is quoted as saying that she would hope that a Laitina Woman, with the life experiences that she has had, would come to a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life...I can only imagine what kind of uproar we would hear if a white male judge had said the same thing about his qualifications!
I imagine that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed as our friendly Republican Senators will seat on their hands as usual and watch this travesty play out...We can only hope that what happened to President George H.W. Bush when he appointed Souter happens to Obama when naming his replacement....
Even So, Come Quickly Lord Jesus!
Monday, May 18, 2009
The President & Abortion...
Good Morning!
Yesterday, the President of the United States, Barrack Obama, was the invited speaker at the commencement exercises at Notre Dame University. There was quite a bit of contraversy surrounding this choice for this honor at this school. Never-the-less, the President accepted the invitation. There was, as a result, a number of protesters to his being there and receiving an honarary doctorate.
My purpose here is to look at several things the President said and then offer commentary:
The Prseident said:
"Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man _ our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."
To say that "too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism" and then advocate abortion on demand for any reason seems contradictory. That is essentially what abortion is all about...Most abortions are for the convenience of the one seeking an abortion...yet the President stands with those who would have unfetterred abortion and has even exported this over-seas by sending U.S. Tax-Payer money to support it...
"The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved."
In the area of stem-cell research, embryonic stem cells have never shown to be an answer in fighting disease whereas, adult stem cells have...
"As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
The President speaks of "fair-minded words"...that we can find common ground...there is no common ground...we believe that abortion is murder and the President and those who push for policies like his do not...How can we reduce the number of abortions when you Mr. President advocate making it available under any circumstances? How can we reduce the number of abortions when you Mr. President promise to sign legislation that will over-turn every abortion limitation to include the abhorrent procedure known as Partial-Birth-Abortion? Or when you advocate that a child that survives a botched abortion should be left to die so as not to interfere with a woman's right to choose? He also tells us that "we can agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision"...DUH! Of course this is a heart-wrenching decision! This is so because a woman is contemplating destroying and murdering the growing life of her CHILD within her!
The fact is that the President holds the power...he has the congress firmly within his grasp and the time for payback to all his supporters has come...the problem is that there are human lives in the balance...human lives that will be murdered for the sake of convenience...God help us...
One last statement about the speech. The President claims that maybe these graduates will help us out with the problem of climate change:
"We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it."
He says that he is a Christian and I am reminded of God's own word on the subject from Genesis 8:22, "While the earth remains,Seedtime and harvest,Cold and heat,Winter and summer,And day and night Shall not cease."
Either we believe God or...Al Gore?
Yesterday, the President of the United States, Barrack Obama, was the invited speaker at the commencement exercises at Notre Dame University. There was quite a bit of contraversy surrounding this choice for this honor at this school. Never-the-less, the President accepted the invitation. There was, as a result, a number of protesters to his being there and receiving an honarary doctorate.
My purpose here is to look at several things the President said and then offer commentary:
The Prseident said:
"Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man _ our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."
To say that "too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism" and then advocate abortion on demand for any reason seems contradictory. That is essentially what abortion is all about...Most abortions are for the convenience of the one seeking an abortion...yet the President stands with those who would have unfetterred abortion and has even exported this over-seas by sending U.S. Tax-Payer money to support it...
"The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved."
In the area of stem-cell research, embryonic stem cells have never shown to be an answer in fighting disease whereas, adult stem cells have...
"As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
The President speaks of "fair-minded words"...that we can find common ground...there is no common ground...we believe that abortion is murder and the President and those who push for policies like his do not...How can we reduce the number of abortions when you Mr. President advocate making it available under any circumstances? How can we reduce the number of abortions when you Mr. President promise to sign legislation that will over-turn every abortion limitation to include the abhorrent procedure known as Partial-Birth-Abortion? Or when you advocate that a child that survives a botched abortion should be left to die so as not to interfere with a woman's right to choose? He also tells us that "we can agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision"...DUH! Of course this is a heart-wrenching decision! This is so because a woman is contemplating destroying and murdering the growing life of her CHILD within her!
The fact is that the President holds the power...he has the congress firmly within his grasp and the time for payback to all his supporters has come...the problem is that there are human lives in the balance...human lives that will be murdered for the sake of convenience...God help us...
One last statement about the speech. The President claims that maybe these graduates will help us out with the problem of climate change:
"We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it."
He says that he is a Christian and I am reminded of God's own word on the subject from Genesis 8:22, "While the earth remains,Seedtime and harvest,Cold and heat,Winter and summer,And day and night Shall not cease."
Either we believe God or...Al Gore?
Friday, May 8, 2009
Who is Jesus?
Good Morning...many in our world today think that they know Jesus. The question of course is do they know the REAL Jesus! Jack Kelly has written a wonderful piece about Jesus that I would love to share with you today:
Seven Men Named Jesus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent poll claimed that about half of all professing Christians don’t believe that Jesus is God, or that the Holy Spirit and Satan even exist. Smaller but still significant percentages don’t believe that Jesus lived a sin free life or that He is the only way to salvation. This has prompted questions about whether this means they aren’t really saved. I remembered an article on this subject that I wrote a number of years ago and in response to these questions I have updated and expanded it. I believe it will explain what you have to believe about Jesus to be saved. Let’s read it.
The Other Six
Ever suspect while talking with someone that you may have a mutual friend? Then as you get further into the conversation you realize that you are describing two different people who happen to have the same name? So it is with discussions of Jesus. The name’s the same but the descriptions vary widely. Over the years I’ve collected numerous descriptions of men named Jesus. Which one do you know?
First there’s the Jesus of Judaism. He’s known in Jewish writings as the illegitimate son of Miriam (Mary). He lived in the first century CE (they don’t use AD) and led people away from main stream Judaism into a cult. His followers were first called Netzerim (people of the branch) and later Christians. In his name Jews have been persecuted unmercifully over the centuries. Jews who admit to believing He was their Messiah are often considered dead to their families. Jews don’t believe in a second coming because they don’t believe there’s been a first one.
Then you have the Jesus of Islam. He was a prophet and teacher on a par with Mohammed. His role was to help prepare people for the great leader from Allah coming at the end of time to judge the world. He was born of a virgin but was not the son of God because the Quran says “God begets not, nor is he begotten.” He didn’t die for the sins of the people because in Islam salvation comes from good works. Neither was he resurrected. Instead, in a time of confusion God took him live into heaven and someone else was crucified. He will return at the end of the age to defeat the anti-Christ, call everyone to Islam, and prepare the world for judgment.
The Jesus of Mormonism is the spirit brother of Lucifer. Both are sons of a god who was once a man and one of his many wives. This Jesus became a human as the result of a sexual union between the Mormon god and an unmarried Jewish girl named Mary. He’s often called the Savior but never Lord, because although he’s one of god’s sons, he’s not god. If he determines that you’ve done everything you possibly can to earn your own salvation and are still short, he’ll graciously make up the difference. He’ll return at the End of the Age, having protected his saints through the time of Great Tribulation, to set up his kingdom.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a Jesus too. He’s a son of Jehovah, but He’s not God. Rather, he was a perfect man just like Adam originally was. Before he became a man he was the Archangel Michael, who The Witnesses believe to be Jehovah’s first created being. Just believing in Jesus is not enough to save us. we also have to become a Jehovah’s Witness, be baptized, and obey God’s laws all of our life to prove ourselves worthy. Their Jesus wasn’t physically resurrected, but came back to life in Spirit form. He returned to Earth in Spirit form in 1914 and will become a physical being again at Armageddon.
Then there’s the Jesus of the liberal denominations. He’s a first century man who lived an exemplary life of such gentleness and grace that it was almost as if he was God. He’ll see that everyone who joins their denominations gets accepted into heaven whether they’re born again or not. Some proponents of liberal theology claim that he’ll also see that everyone who was sincere in whatever other religion they practiced will get to heaven too. For the most part, liberal denominations don’t believe in the literal fulfillment of End Time events. For many, the 2nd Coming happened to each person when they first believed in Jesus.
The New Age Jesus is really one of the oldest. He originally appeared in first century Gnosticism. This Jesus was a man who like 40 other “ascended masters” holds the key to knowledge (gnosis) that when learned will bring about the next phase of human evolution, a spiritual growth that will finally make peace on earth possible. He didn’t die for our sins because there’s no need for us to be saved.
You’ll find variations on these six themes in nearly every major religion and cult around today. It seems every body wants you to think they know a man named Jesus, even if they have to redefine him to suit their beliefs.
The Real Jesus
But there is one more man named Jesus. He is not a created being. On the contrary He is our Creator. As Paul wrote in Colossians 1:16, By him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He’s not an angel and he’s not a mere man, because He created both. The archangel Michael might be the first created being, but if he is, Jesus is the one who created him. And Lucifer may have many brothers, but if he does, Jesus created them all.
This is the Jesus of the Bible. He claimed to be God in the form of man (John 10:30 and 14:9). Men who knew Him agreed. Paul taught the Deity of Jesus in Colossians 1:15-16. So did John (John 1:1-3). The writer of the Book of Hebrews also agreed (Hebr 1:3) and included a quote from Psalm 45:6-7 that shows God Himself addressing Jesus as God (Hebr 1:8). And this is not just a New Testament idea. In his prophecy of the Messiah’s birthplace, Micah said He was an eternal being whose goings forth were from days of eternity. Literally from before time and perpetual. (Micah 5:2) He is the eternal God.
Here’s where your knowledge of Scripture becomes really important, because in order to be all the Bible claims, Jesus has to be both 100% man and 100% God. If He isn’t a man He couldn’t have been made like us in every way and suffered our temptations as Hebr. 2:17-18 claim; he couldn’t be our High Priest as Hebr. 4:14-15 assert; and he can’t be our redeemer because he wouldn’t be our next of kin as required by Lev. 25:47-48 and explained in Rom 5:18-19. If He isn’t God He couldn’t be King David’s Lord (Matt 22:41-45) He couldn’t be sinless (Rom 3:20) and He couldn’t be our Savior (Mark 2:6-12 and 1 Ptr 1: 18-21).
Is This a Cult?
Three things distinguish Christian cult beliefs from orthodox theology. The cults deny the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. You have to earn at least part of the salvation they offer. They also deny the notion of eternal punishment for sin. Everyone goes to some kind of Heaven. And most importantly, they deny the deity of Jesus. They portray Him as a great man and role model; a great teacher, a prophet, even a social revolutionary, but certainly not God.
In truth Jesus was all of that. But He was also much more. He was God in the form of man; the Father dwelling in the Son (Col 1:19). To think of Jesus as anyone other than God is to reject the truth concerning Him revealed through out His Word, and to put yourself at risk of trusting in the wrong Jesus for your eternal destiny. The Jesus of the Bible is the only one of the seven men named Jesus who is able to save you. Selah 05-02-09
Seven Men Named Jesus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent poll claimed that about half of all professing Christians don’t believe that Jesus is God, or that the Holy Spirit and Satan even exist. Smaller but still significant percentages don’t believe that Jesus lived a sin free life or that He is the only way to salvation. This has prompted questions about whether this means they aren’t really saved. I remembered an article on this subject that I wrote a number of years ago and in response to these questions I have updated and expanded it. I believe it will explain what you have to believe about Jesus to be saved. Let’s read it.
The Other Six
Ever suspect while talking with someone that you may have a mutual friend? Then as you get further into the conversation you realize that you are describing two different people who happen to have the same name? So it is with discussions of Jesus. The name’s the same but the descriptions vary widely. Over the years I’ve collected numerous descriptions of men named Jesus. Which one do you know?
First there’s the Jesus of Judaism. He’s known in Jewish writings as the illegitimate son of Miriam (Mary). He lived in the first century CE (they don’t use AD) and led people away from main stream Judaism into a cult. His followers were first called Netzerim (people of the branch) and later Christians. In his name Jews have been persecuted unmercifully over the centuries. Jews who admit to believing He was their Messiah are often considered dead to their families. Jews don’t believe in a second coming because they don’t believe there’s been a first one.
Then you have the Jesus of Islam. He was a prophet and teacher on a par with Mohammed. His role was to help prepare people for the great leader from Allah coming at the end of time to judge the world. He was born of a virgin but was not the son of God because the Quran says “God begets not, nor is he begotten.” He didn’t die for the sins of the people because in Islam salvation comes from good works. Neither was he resurrected. Instead, in a time of confusion God took him live into heaven and someone else was crucified. He will return at the end of the age to defeat the anti-Christ, call everyone to Islam, and prepare the world for judgment.
The Jesus of Mormonism is the spirit brother of Lucifer. Both are sons of a god who was once a man and one of his many wives. This Jesus became a human as the result of a sexual union between the Mormon god and an unmarried Jewish girl named Mary. He’s often called the Savior but never Lord, because although he’s one of god’s sons, he’s not god. If he determines that you’ve done everything you possibly can to earn your own salvation and are still short, he’ll graciously make up the difference. He’ll return at the End of the Age, having protected his saints through the time of Great Tribulation, to set up his kingdom.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a Jesus too. He’s a son of Jehovah, but He’s not God. Rather, he was a perfect man just like Adam originally was. Before he became a man he was the Archangel Michael, who The Witnesses believe to be Jehovah’s first created being. Just believing in Jesus is not enough to save us. we also have to become a Jehovah’s Witness, be baptized, and obey God’s laws all of our life to prove ourselves worthy. Their Jesus wasn’t physically resurrected, but came back to life in Spirit form. He returned to Earth in Spirit form in 1914 and will become a physical being again at Armageddon.
Then there’s the Jesus of the liberal denominations. He’s a first century man who lived an exemplary life of such gentleness and grace that it was almost as if he was God. He’ll see that everyone who joins their denominations gets accepted into heaven whether they’re born again or not. Some proponents of liberal theology claim that he’ll also see that everyone who was sincere in whatever other religion they practiced will get to heaven too. For the most part, liberal denominations don’t believe in the literal fulfillment of End Time events. For many, the 2nd Coming happened to each person when they first believed in Jesus.
The New Age Jesus is really one of the oldest. He originally appeared in first century Gnosticism. This Jesus was a man who like 40 other “ascended masters” holds the key to knowledge (gnosis) that when learned will bring about the next phase of human evolution, a spiritual growth that will finally make peace on earth possible. He didn’t die for our sins because there’s no need for us to be saved.
You’ll find variations on these six themes in nearly every major religion and cult around today. It seems every body wants you to think they know a man named Jesus, even if they have to redefine him to suit their beliefs.
The Real Jesus
But there is one more man named Jesus. He is not a created being. On the contrary He is our Creator. As Paul wrote in Colossians 1:16, By him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He’s not an angel and he’s not a mere man, because He created both. The archangel Michael might be the first created being, but if he is, Jesus is the one who created him. And Lucifer may have many brothers, but if he does, Jesus created them all.
This is the Jesus of the Bible. He claimed to be God in the form of man (John 10:30 and 14:9). Men who knew Him agreed. Paul taught the Deity of Jesus in Colossians 1:15-16. So did John (John 1:1-3). The writer of the Book of Hebrews also agreed (Hebr 1:3) and included a quote from Psalm 45:6-7 that shows God Himself addressing Jesus as God (Hebr 1:8). And this is not just a New Testament idea. In his prophecy of the Messiah’s birthplace, Micah said He was an eternal being whose goings forth were from days of eternity. Literally from before time and perpetual. (Micah 5:2) He is the eternal God.
Here’s where your knowledge of Scripture becomes really important, because in order to be all the Bible claims, Jesus has to be both 100% man and 100% God. If He isn’t a man He couldn’t have been made like us in every way and suffered our temptations as Hebr. 2:17-18 claim; he couldn’t be our High Priest as Hebr. 4:14-15 assert; and he can’t be our redeemer because he wouldn’t be our next of kin as required by Lev. 25:47-48 and explained in Rom 5:18-19. If He isn’t God He couldn’t be King David’s Lord (Matt 22:41-45) He couldn’t be sinless (Rom 3:20) and He couldn’t be our Savior (Mark 2:6-12 and 1 Ptr 1: 18-21).
Is This a Cult?
Three things distinguish Christian cult beliefs from orthodox theology. The cults deny the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. You have to earn at least part of the salvation they offer. They also deny the notion of eternal punishment for sin. Everyone goes to some kind of Heaven. And most importantly, they deny the deity of Jesus. They portray Him as a great man and role model; a great teacher, a prophet, even a social revolutionary, but certainly not God.
In truth Jesus was all of that. But He was also much more. He was God in the form of man; the Father dwelling in the Son (Col 1:19). To think of Jesus as anyone other than God is to reject the truth concerning Him revealed through out His Word, and to put yourself at risk of trusting in the wrong Jesus for your eternal destiny. The Jesus of the Bible is the only one of the seven men named Jesus who is able to save you. Selah 05-02-09
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The First 100 Days
Good Afternoon
Our President has been in office now for 100 days. What have we seen in these days? We have a bail-out of billions of dollars for Banks, Autos and I guess whomever gets in line next. The funny thing is, the majority of Americans never wanted these bailouts to begin with...and to think that W started this mess...and the money seems to hae "disappeared"...we were told that the stimulus bill was so important that it must be passed before anyone in Congress (except the authors) could even read it...the irony is that when it passed, the President went on a four day vacation and said he would sign it later...real important bill huh?
We have seen the President use his executive order to send money overseas to facilitate abortion...we are still waiting on the executive order to end the right of medical care providers to refuse abortions on religious grounds...
He has appointed men and women who refused to pay their own taxes, has Homeland Security officials who claim that returning military veterans are terrorist risks along with yours truly! That's right! Since I am against abortion and same-sex marriage (abominations both!) and teach end-times prophecies, I too am a risk to becoming a "home-grown terrorist" according to our government...And this is just for starters!
Its going to be a LONG four years!
Even So, Lord Jesus Come Quickly!!!!
P.S. By the way...if you see an add by Google on this Blog that would seem to be at odds with the views stated therein, its because they put it there...NOT ME!
Our President has been in office now for 100 days. What have we seen in these days? We have a bail-out of billions of dollars for Banks, Autos and I guess whomever gets in line next. The funny thing is, the majority of Americans never wanted these bailouts to begin with...and to think that W started this mess...and the money seems to hae "disappeared"...we were told that the stimulus bill was so important that it must be passed before anyone in Congress (except the authors) could even read it...the irony is that when it passed, the President went on a four day vacation and said he would sign it later...real important bill huh?
We have seen the President use his executive order to send money overseas to facilitate abortion...we are still waiting on the executive order to end the right of medical care providers to refuse abortions on religious grounds...
He has appointed men and women who refused to pay their own taxes, has Homeland Security officials who claim that returning military veterans are terrorist risks along with yours truly! That's right! Since I am against abortion and same-sex marriage (abominations both!) and teach end-times prophecies, I too am a risk to becoming a "home-grown terrorist" according to our government...And this is just for starters!
Its going to be a LONG four years!
Even So, Lord Jesus Come Quickly!!!!
P.S. By the way...if you see an add by Google on this Blog that would seem to be at odds with the views stated therein, its because they put it there...NOT ME!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Random Thoughts
Today is Wednesday, April 22, 2009 and I am sitting in my office examining some various news stories on the net...
Kudos to Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who stood true to her convictions that marriage is to be between one man and one woman...I wish that more people who claim to know Jesus Christ would have the same courage to stand and not retreat (Are you listening Rick Warren?) from the truths of God's Word...even in the firestorm that has followed, she has remained undeterred in her convictions!
Kudos to Gary Galeotti, my Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Dr. Galeotti is retiring after spending more than 30 years of teaching, the last 17 at SEBTS. He is a remarkable man of God and I am sure that the Seminary will miss him!
In a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann's program on MSNBC, Janeane Garofalo stated that the TEA parties were just racism. She said that the parties were just people who did not like a black guy in the White House. Well, we really cannot expect anything any different from those of the liberal persuasion...just because someone disagrees with the President's policies does not make them a racist. The fact is that Government, under Bush, and now under Obama, has been and is spending too much money that the country does not have. the only way to recoup this money, according to their logic, is to increase taxes....I know, I know, Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans...however, the second shoe is about to drop...it seems that Obama wants to change our behavior by a "cap & trade" bill that estimates say, will increase your energy costs some $3,000.00 per household per year, if this bill is passed...Obama himself has said that energy bills will skyrocket for the average consumer...so whenever you drive, turn on your a/c at home, use the blowdryer, wash your clothes, etc. you will certainly pay for it with a tax that is designed to make you quit doing those things in order to "save" the earth...Change we can believe in, Change...that's all that will be left in our wallets!
We had an interesting night in Columbus the other night...it seems that just as I was preparing my coffee maker to come on the next morning for my daily cup of joe, a loud voice came from outside saying that a tornado had been spotted in Phenix City, Alabama and that we should take cover...NOW! Then the siren went off...You should have seen 7 of us, plus one feline, huddled together in the hallway of our home (a small hallway!) with laptops at the ready to track the storm. The Lord was watching over us that night as the storm passed just to our west and north...the city experienced some damage, but, thankfully, no lives were lost...
Have a Great Day!
Kudos to Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who stood true to her convictions that marriage is to be between one man and one woman...I wish that more people who claim to know Jesus Christ would have the same courage to stand and not retreat (Are you listening Rick Warren?) from the truths of God's Word...even in the firestorm that has followed, she has remained undeterred in her convictions!
Kudos to Gary Galeotti, my Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Dr. Galeotti is retiring after spending more than 30 years of teaching, the last 17 at SEBTS. He is a remarkable man of God and I am sure that the Seminary will miss him!
In a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann's program on MSNBC, Janeane Garofalo stated that the TEA parties were just racism. She said that the parties were just people who did not like a black guy in the White House. Well, we really cannot expect anything any different from those of the liberal persuasion...just because someone disagrees with the President's policies does not make them a racist. The fact is that Government, under Bush, and now under Obama, has been and is spending too much money that the country does not have. the only way to recoup this money, according to their logic, is to increase taxes....I know, I know, Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans...however, the second shoe is about to drop...it seems that Obama wants to change our behavior by a "cap & trade" bill that estimates say, will increase your energy costs some $3,000.00 per household per year, if this bill is passed...Obama himself has said that energy bills will skyrocket for the average consumer...so whenever you drive, turn on your a/c at home, use the blowdryer, wash your clothes, etc. you will certainly pay for it with a tax that is designed to make you quit doing those things in order to "save" the earth...Change we can believe in, Change...that's all that will be left in our wallets!
We had an interesting night in Columbus the other night...it seems that just as I was preparing my coffee maker to come on the next morning for my daily cup of joe, a loud voice came from outside saying that a tornado had been spotted in Phenix City, Alabama and that we should take cover...NOW! Then the siren went off...You should have seen 7 of us, plus one feline, huddled together in the hallway of our home (a small hallway!) with laptops at the ready to track the storm. The Lord was watching over us that night as the storm passed just to our west and north...the city experienced some damage, but, thankfully, no lives were lost...
Have a Great Day!
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wanted?
After serving in Law Enforcement for 15 years and having been an observer of the political scene for...well, longer than I care to admit, I finally know what those folks on the FBI most wanted list must feel like! In case you have had your head in the sand for the last several days, the Department of Homeland Security has released a report detailing their assessment of so-called "right-wing extremists". The report states that those who are of one issue like say abortion, or same-sex marriage or even a teacher of end times prophecies are likely to be terrorists! We are said to be recruiting new members because of the economic conditions, etc. We were also lumped in with returning military vets...A group I would gladly stand with, by the way...
So my government says that I am a risk to be a terrorist because I believe in the sanctity of human life, believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, and teach end times prophecies...I believe in law and order and I believe that there is a proper way to redress our government with our grievances, certainly not through terrorism...I have written a letter to Secretary Napolitano to express my disbelief...I can hear the sound of the approaching hoof-beats!
Even so, Lord Jesus come quickly!
So my government says that I am a risk to be a terrorist because I believe in the sanctity of human life, believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, and teach end times prophecies...I believe in law and order and I believe that there is a proper way to redress our government with our grievances, certainly not through terrorism...I have written a letter to Secretary Napolitano to express my disbelief...I can hear the sound of the approaching hoof-beats!
Even so, Lord Jesus come quickly!
Dirty Politics Taints All Elections
Good Morning...I am an American! I love this land that God lead our founding fathers to start. I get very upset and angry when those running for office don't play by the rules. I also get very upset when rules change after the election to tilt the final result to one candidate or another. The following article details what has happened in Minnesota and it is a scary thing that has happened. I trust that this election will encourage all of us to be ever more vigilant each election cycle:
Minnesota's Missing Votes
Some Senate absentee ballots are more equal than others..Articlemore in Opinion ».EmailPrinter FriendlyShare:
Meanwhile, back in the Minnesota Senate recount, the three-judge panel reviewing the race has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner. Republican Norm Coleman intends to appeal to the state's Supreme Court, while Democrats and the press corps pressure him to surrender. We hope Mr. Coleman keeps fighting, because the outcome so far hangs on the fact that some votes have been counted differently from others.
AP.Even after the recount and panel-findings, the 312-vote margin separating the two men equals about .01% of the 2.9 million votes cast. Even without any irregularities, this is as close to a "tie" as it gets. And there have been plenty of irregularities. By the end of the recount, the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted. Any one of these issues was enough to throw the outcome into doubt. Combined, they created a taint more worthy of New Jersey than Minnesota.
The Coleman camp pushed for resolution of these problems during the recount, but it was stymied by a state canvassing board that cared more about preserving its "Minnesota nice" reputation than about making tough calls. The state Supreme Court also punted difficult questions. The mess then landed with the three-judge panel overseeing Mr. Coleman's contest trial, a panel that seemed out of its depth.
Case in point: the panel's dismal handling of absentee ballots. Early in the recount, the Franken team howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. We warned at the time that this was dangerous territory, designed to pressure election officials into accepting rejected ballots after the fact.
Yet instead of shutting this Franken request down, or early on issuing a clear set of rules as to which absentees were valid, the state Supreme Court and the canvassing board oversaw a haphazard process by which some counties submitted new batches to be included in the tally, while other counties did not. The resulting additional 933 ballots were largely responsible for Mr. Franken's narrow lead.
During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6,500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933. The three judges then finally defined what constituted a "legal" absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.
But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition.
If all this sounds familiar, think Florida 2000. In that Presidential recount, officials couldn't decide what counted as a legal vote, and so different counties used different standards. The Florida Supreme Court made things worse by changing the rules after the fact. In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violated Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, which require that every vote be accorded equal weight.
This will be a basis for Mr. Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should that body be reluctant to publicly rebuke their judicial colleagues who sat on the contest panel, Mr. Coleman could also take his appeal to federal court. This could take months.
Another solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution's 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling "vacancies," which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. Even before the shifting standards of the contest trial, the St. Paul Pioneer Press looked at the ballot-counting evidence and called for a revote. It could be that this is where the court case is leading in any event.
Democrats want to portray Mr. Coleman as a sore loser and make the Republican worry that he will ruin his chances for other political office. But Mr. Coleman has a legitimate grievance that not all votes have been treated equally. If the Franken standard of disparate absentee-voter treatment is allowed to stand, every close election will be settled by a legal scramble to change the vote-counting rules after Election Day. Minnesota should take the time to get this one right.
Minnesota's Missing Votes
Some Senate absentee ballots are more equal than others..Articlemore in Opinion ».EmailPrinter FriendlyShare:
Meanwhile, back in the Minnesota Senate recount, the three-judge panel reviewing the race has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner. Republican Norm Coleman intends to appeal to the state's Supreme Court, while Democrats and the press corps pressure him to surrender. We hope Mr. Coleman keeps fighting, because the outcome so far hangs on the fact that some votes have been counted differently from others.
AP.Even after the recount and panel-findings, the 312-vote margin separating the two men equals about .01% of the 2.9 million votes cast. Even without any irregularities, this is as close to a "tie" as it gets. And there have been plenty of irregularities. By the end of the recount, the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted. Any one of these issues was enough to throw the outcome into doubt. Combined, they created a taint more worthy of New Jersey than Minnesota.
The Coleman camp pushed for resolution of these problems during the recount, but it was stymied by a state canvassing board that cared more about preserving its "Minnesota nice" reputation than about making tough calls. The state Supreme Court also punted difficult questions. The mess then landed with the three-judge panel overseeing Mr. Coleman's contest trial, a panel that seemed out of its depth.
Case in point: the panel's dismal handling of absentee ballots. Early in the recount, the Franken team howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. We warned at the time that this was dangerous territory, designed to pressure election officials into accepting rejected ballots after the fact.
Yet instead of shutting this Franken request down, or early on issuing a clear set of rules as to which absentees were valid, the state Supreme Court and the canvassing board oversaw a haphazard process by which some counties submitted new batches to be included in the tally, while other counties did not. The resulting additional 933 ballots were largely responsible for Mr. Franken's narrow lead.
During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6,500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933. The three judges then finally defined what constituted a "legal" absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.
But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition.
If all this sounds familiar, think Florida 2000. In that Presidential recount, officials couldn't decide what counted as a legal vote, and so different counties used different standards. The Florida Supreme Court made things worse by changing the rules after the fact. In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violated Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, which require that every vote be accorded equal weight.
This will be a basis for Mr. Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should that body be reluctant to publicly rebuke their judicial colleagues who sat on the contest panel, Mr. Coleman could also take his appeal to federal court. This could take months.
Another solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution's 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling "vacancies," which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. Even before the shifting standards of the contest trial, the St. Paul Pioneer Press looked at the ballot-counting evidence and called for a revote. It could be that this is where the court case is leading in any event.
Democrats want to portray Mr. Coleman as a sore loser and make the Republican worry that he will ruin his chances for other political office. But Mr. Coleman has a legitimate grievance that not all votes have been treated equally. If the Franken standard of disparate absentee-voter treatment is allowed to stand, every close election will be settled by a legal scramble to change the vote-counting rules after Election Day. Minnesota should take the time to get this one right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)