TruthDialogue | the Blog

A Beautiful Country

2011-11-09T07:41:00.000-06:00

This is slick 5-minute time-lapse video of a photographer who drove over 12,000 miles around the United States recording his journey. Enjoy.

I Support Mississippi Amendment 26

2011-11-07T07:50:00.000-06:00

I support Mississippi Amendment 26. I believe that human life begins at conception and that this life is sacred. I believe that abortion or contraceptives or any fertilization methods that intentionally destroys a living human zygote, embryo or fetus is morally wrong and should be illegal. Amendment 26 will establish the legal principle that lawmakers and courts can build upon to protect innocent human life.

I am amazed at the sheer amount of lies and misinformation about 26 that have been spread across the Internet - some intentionally and some not. The Left tends to use fear tactics and appeal to people's emotions to promote its agenda, and in the case of 26 this has clearly been the case. A huge campaign of deceit has been waged on 26, and many people from both sides of the political spectrum have bought into it. This saddens me and makes me fearful that 26 might not pass.

While it is true that Amendment 26 does not explicitly detail all of its own ramifications (and this by design), here is what I think is safe to say:

If Amendment 26 passes...

Abortion will become illegal in Mississippi.
Human cloning will be banned in Mississippi.
The morning after pill will be banned in Mississippi.

But what about all the other scary scenarios concocted by 26's opposition? Will women who miscarry become criminals? Will ectopic pregnancies become criminalized? Will IVF be outlawed? What about birth-control pills? Some of these questions are valid, yet some are insanely stupid, especially the first two. The principle established by 26 only serves to define what the terms 'person' or 'persons' mean in the existing MS state code, thereby giving the same constitutional rights to the unborn as the born. To think that a woman whose baby - by no fault of her own - did not make it through the duration of the pregnancy would be prosecuted is illogical and silly. Of course, if she willingly and intentionally acts in a way to destroy the life inside of her then she would be held responsible for destroying human life, just like she would for having an abortion. The same is true with ectopic pregnancies. No woman would choose to have one of these, which is beyond her control anyway. No woman or doctor would be charged with a crime for actions that were taken to save a woman's life in this scenario. To suggest otherwise simply makes no sense.

(Amendment 26 from a theological perspective, by Dr. Bill Ury)

And what about IVF? Well, if 26 passes it would mean that some IVF tactics would have to change. The discarding of unwanted successfully fertilized eggs for example would become banned, but then again, why shouldn't it be? If human life begins at conception, does it matter where the conception took place (whether inside the womb or out)? The same is true with the circumstances of the conception. I know this can be a very unpopular position, but if a baby is conceived as a result of rape or incest is it still not a baby just the same? Why should the innocent pay for the crime of the guilty? I know these are very difficult situations that deal with very tough decisions, but Amendment 26 would finally provide the legal framework that would protect the voiceless innocent.

I'm sure there are other issues of this discussion that I have not addressed or exhaustively thought through. I am not a scientist or a woman, but I don't think that precludes the possibility of me forming a sound moral position on the issue of life. And ultimately I am willing to grapple with the side-effects of 26's passage for the sake of outlawing abortion. It is a small price to pay, I think, for ending the most barbaric, immoral practice in the history of the world in the state of Mississippi.

In my humble estimation, we'd be crazy not to vote 'yes' on 26.

(P.S. If you disagree with me, that's fine. Just be respectful in stating your disagreements. I'm not trying to start a war with anyone, but this is an important issue that needs to be discussed.)

Obama's Dirty-Mouthed Secretary

2011-11-01T07:55:00.000-05:00

Hilda L. Solis, Labor Secretary. AP photo.

U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis spoke to the Florida Democratic Convention this past Saturday in a campaign speech for her boss. She attacked the Tea Party and called them 'teabaggers'. This really bothers me, that someone at this level of the administration would be permitted (once again) to use such a vulgar description for a group of American citizens. But what can you expect when your boss used the very same language and has permitted countless others to wage a war on the activists. For example:

On August 22, Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) told supporters in California (many dressed in purple SEIU t-shirts), “[As] far as I’m concerned, the ‘Tea Party’ can go straight to Hell.”

In August, Rep. Andre Carson (D., Ind.) told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.”

Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to compare the Tea Party to terrorists, and at a Labor Day speech he told a union audience that they are “the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates.”

This is all from the very same people who call for 'civility' in public discourse. Apparently what they mean by civility is that people are not allowed to criticize their policies that are running this country into the ground while they can use any inflammatory language they desire to smear people's character and incite hatred toward one or more groups.

I'm a fair guy and pretty thick-skinned. While I don't agree with leftist policies, I welcome an honest and sincere debate on the issues. But this sort of tactic utilized by Obama and his minions is despicable and should be pointed out as such.

The Angry First Lady

2011-10-31T07:45:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times has a snarky little opinion piece this morning highlighting the nonsense coming from Michelle Obama these days. The first lady is on the campaign trail as her husband's attack dog, which is unfortunate IMO because I tend to view the role of first lady with a little more dignity than that.

I'm coining a new acronymn: KICM. Keep it classy, Michelle.

Presenting the New TruthDialogue

2011-10-21T18:01:00.000-05:00

For the third time in as many years this website has undergone a significant overhaul. This year's update makes some changes that I think have been overdue for some time. Let's review:

The high contrast white on black scheme was cheesy and hard to look at. This new interface is cleaner and simpler. 'Nuff said.
There used to be simply too much information across the entire site. The content has been greatly reduced this go-around, so hopefully everything that needs to be said is said and all the static is gone.
The site is less specific in terms of intended audience, purpose and subject matter. Hopefully this will liberate me to speak on a wider set of topics to a wider potential audience. Hopefully...
Lots of changes took place beneath the hood. Nerds will appreciate it more than non-nerds.
There is significantly less cheese involved now.

So there you have it. I will continue to optimize and update over the coming days and weeks as I find time. My goal is to blog more often, but instead of the blog being focused on a very specific set of topics I plan on expanding its scope, but we'll see. My hope is that you come along for the ride.

Red Alert!

2011-10-19T19:56:00.002-05:00

A site redesign is imminent. Coming soon you will notice that the entire TruthDialogue site will undergo a much needed refresh.

I just thought you would like to know.

The Monks on Mt. Athos

2011-04-25T21:31:00.000-05:00

60 Minutes recently did a documentary on the Orthodox monks living on Mt. Athos, a self-governing territory located on a Greek peninsula. Even those who find the Orthodox strange and/or irrelevant will most likely find the documentary to be fascinating for a host of reasons.

Unfortunately, embedding of the videos is prohibited, but I have supplied the relevant Youtube links below:

Main program, part 1
Main program, part 2
60 Minutes Extra: Life on Mt. Athos
60 Minutes Extra: Mt. Athos' Autonomy
Behind the Scenes Travelogue

Teachers Unions Explained

2011-03-07T15:54:00.002-06:00

Be Still

2011-01-24T17:10:00.000-06:00

"He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?’" - Mark 4:39-40 (NRSV)

Jesus brings peace. His disciples had fear and angst, yet with a simple spoken word Jesus brought order to their chaos. How encouraging is that to you today? Who of us does not live a single day of life without some issue weighing on our soul? Who doesn't have a fear, or some level of angst, about a particular circumstance in life? I know that, if not careful, I can become quite absorbed in the concerns of day to day life, to the point of downright despair. But the words of Jesus comfort my soul and give me hope.

"Peace. Be still." And there was a dead calm.

What issue has you concerned today? Are you dealing with a financial burden? Do you have a relationship problem? Are you dealing with some form of emotional toil? Let me take it even deeper: Do you have sin in your life? Jesus can help with that too. After all, his words calm the fiercest storm that nature has to offer. His feet tread upon the raging waters. If he has such command over nature around us, can he not take control of your nature as well? If you don't think so, consider his rebuke: Have you still no faith? The answer, if we live in sin, or fear, or angst, has to be, "No."

Therefore I offer you this simple solution: Trust in Jesus. If you know him, great. Walk in the light that has been given you. If you do not know him, let him meet you. The story in Mark says that Jesus rode in their boat "as he was" (v. 36). There is no pretense with Jesus. He is who he is, and he wants you to know him and be known by him. Let him ride along in the boat of your life; let him bring peace to your storms.

Obama: Republicans Counting On Blacks Staying Home

2010-10-11T21:52:00.002-05:00

Ah, yes. America's first post-racial President.

Logos Bible Software 4

2010-08-19T22:59:00.003-05:00

Logos Bible Software is giving away thousands of dollars of prizes to celebrate the launch of Logos Bible Software 4 Mac on October 1. Prizes include an iMac, a MacBook Pro, an iPad, an iPod Touch, and more than 100 other prizes!

Who's Racist? The Tea Party Movement or the NAACP?

2010-07-21T10:17:00.002-05:00

Bigger Than Hasselhoff

2010-07-16T10:07:00.002-05:00

Yes, it is true. I am now a German television star. Recently I posted a video to my YouTube channel showing how the new iPhone suffers from signal loss when held a certain way, and today the German news network, NTV, used my video in their broadcast.

Click the picture to the right to see the video of their broadcast yourself. My video appears at the 2:48 mark.

Also, I have embedded my YouTube video below so that you can see what everybody in Germany is talking about. Be sure to watch it in all its full HD glory.

11 Reasons to Vote for Democrats in November

2010-07-02T14:03:00.001-05:00

A Clueless White House

2010-06-16T11:39:00.001-05:00

It's day 58 of the Gulf oil spill and the President still has no idea what he's doing. I'm not blaming him for the disaster, nor am I suggesting that he should be out there scrubbing oil off the sand. (Courtesies never extended to Bush after Katrina.) However, this crisis has reaffirmed what many of us have known and been saying all along: Barack Obama does not know what he's doing.

What more could you expect from someone who has never run ANYTHING in his entire life? He has had ZERO executive experience during his brief and unimpressive career. All he has ever done is organize communities (extreme social activism bent on causing chaos, à la Saul Alinsky) and campaigned for state and U.S. senate, where he hardly ever showed up to cast a vote. He's never headed up a major corporation or run even the smallest local government, and does anyone really think the Oval Office is the place for on-the-job training?

During these last 58 days, Obama has shown no ability to see America through a crisis. When the livelihoods of so many are at stake -- as well as the Gulf's precious beaches, marshes, and marine life -- he has been out golfing every other day, or sending lawyers to the coast, or blaming Bush, or going on vacation, or seizing this as an opportunity to push forward a crippling energy tax on America's economy -- none of which do anything to stop a single drop of oil from polluting the Gulf or cleaning up what has already been spilled. When he should have been leading the way by working with the experts in the oil industry in stopping oil from pouring into the ocean, as well as assuring the country that he is in control, he has only worked to establish (yet another) commission to study why and how the disaster occurred, pushed for global warming legislation, and initiated a criminal investigation and possible prosecution of BP. Seriously?

I'm not alone in my assessment either. Even the most radical liberals in the media are finally starting to take note. In the wake of his grossly belated Presidential address from the Oval Office last night, the talking heads at MSNBC had nothing positive to say about either this speech specifically or Obama's leadership during this crisis in general. Up until now, the only time the liberal media criticized Obama for anything was when he wasn't being liberal enough in his policies. But during this significant crisis even the most staunch, card-carrying progressive wacko can see just how inept Obama truly is. Teleprompters, politics, blaming others, and speeches can never replace executive aptitude or command, and his response to the Gulf oil spill proves it.

What can we learn from this episode in our nation's history? I have enumerated the following list of thoughts, which may grow over time as the crisis continues to unfold:

Barack Obama is not a leader. Good speaker? Maybe. (Assuming he has a functional teleprompter handy.) Charismatic personality? Perhaps. Leader? No. Sadly, we have a child playing the role of President, someone who is totally incompetent and unqualified to occupy the office and perform its duties.
This administration will take advantage of any crisis to cram an ultra-liberal/progressive legislative agenda down a reluctant America's throat. They did it with housing crisis. They did it with health care crisis. They did it with the recession. And they'll keep doing it every chance they get. (Never forget what Rahm Emanuel said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.")
The Federal government cannot be relied upon for everything. The response has been slow and mismanaged from the beginning. Sadly, this is the same Federal government that wants to manage EVERY aspect of your, and my, daily lives. A big, bloated government only makes things more difficult. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House, as well as the Coast Guard, have been putting out confusing and contradictory statements since the disaster began.
Federal regulation does not guarantee quality or safety. Is there a more heavily regulated industry than the oil industry? Yet this disaster still occurred. In the end, you can never completely avoid freak disasters, and over-regulation only makes things more difficult and complicated and in the end hurts the consumer.
The enviro-left shares as much blame for this disaster as BP. Why are we drilling for oil in mile deep water when there is oil that is much easier to access? I think you already know the answer.

What should be done? I think the Heritage Foundation has some good ideas (as they always do). But what can we do about it? The best we can do is take advantage of this November's elections to replace the folks in Congress that have given Obama a free pass to push forward such a destructive agenda, minimize the damage of the second half of his term in office, and get him the heck out of there in 2014 by replacing him with someone who has a clue, shares genuine American values, and adheres to and cherishes the Constitution.

Dispelling Some Myths About Social Security

2010-06-03T20:48:00.015-05:00

Recently I received a political email forward from a friend concerning Social Security. The whole point of the email was to demonstrate the evils of Social Security and that the Democrats are solely to blame for them all. Now anyone who has been on this site before knows that criticism of the progressive left is a regular feature on this blog. But, in the interest of objectivity, I did some looking into the assertions of this forward in order to get to the truth of it.

READ THE EMAIL HERE

I asked a close friend who teaches U.S. History to look into the matter for me. He emailed some questions to a certain scholar from Stanford who is an authority on U.S. History, particularly during the Depression and WWII eras. Here is the content of their correspondence (answers in blue):

What is the the level of accuracy of these statements concerning the history of social security?

1.) That, in the beginning, it was promised that participation in the Program would be completely voluntary? I HAVE NEVER HEARD THIS. THERE MAY BE SOME ROOM FOR ARGUMENT ABOUT "THE BEGINNING," SINCE THE FIRST FORMAL PROPOSALS FOR OLD-AGE PENSIONS WERE IN THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY PLATFORM OF 1912 (A DOCUMENT YOU CAN FIND ON-LINE). BUT THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY THAT FDR APPOINTED TO DRAFT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT PRESUMED FROM THE OUTSET THAT COVERAGE WOULD BE AS CLOSE TO UNIVERSAL AS POSSIBLE, AND THEREFORE OBLIGATORY FOR WHOMEVER WAS TO BE COVERED.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program? THE 1% TAX IS CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO THE OLD-AGE PENSIONS PART OF THE ACT. (ONLY EMPLOYERS PAID INTO THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND, THE OTHER MAJOR PIECE OF THE LEGISLATION). OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE $1400 CEILING, BUT THAT NUMBER WAS APPROXIMATELY THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1935. See: http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1934-36.pdf

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year? IT WAS NEVER DEDUCTIBLE

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program? NO MONEY FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM WAS EVER DIRECTLY ALLOCATED TO GENERAL TREASURY FUNDS.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income? SOME FRACTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME WAS TAXED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY AFTER LEGISLATION IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION YEARS. SEE: http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Don't misinterpret this blog entry as any kind of defense for government entitlements. Nor am I suggesting that the assertions of this email are entirely untrue. The alarming truth is that big entitlements like Social Security and Medicare (with their $45+ TRILLION in unfunded obligations), along with the national debt and skyrocketing deficits, are literally bankrupting America for generations to come. My interest, however, is in the truth, and that means thinking about accusations before making them.

So my charge to you is to think before you forward. Don't send emails just because they appear damning to your political opposition, even if they are partially, or even mostly, true.

My Friend on the Topic of God's Calling

2010-05-28T10:26:00.001-05:00

My good friend and fellow WBS alum, Sarah Lee, has posted a wonderful entry on her blog on the topic of God's calling. I recommend you read it, and share your thoughts if you have any. Enjoy.

Blog Updates

2010-05-19T17:50:00.000-05:00

I do my best to try and keep this blog fresh with both new content and new features. One of the sections that I have recently been focusing upon improving is the "Blog Quick Links" section which appears on the left just beneath my blogger profile. This topical index saves you time by organizing important past posts in an easy and accessible way.

Here is a list of recent and upcoming updates for you to check out and keep and eye out for:

The Creation vs. Evolution topic has been changed to Science & Technology in order to accommodate blog entries concerning science/technology in general instead of just the specific creation/evolution debate.
The blog quick link list will highlight the link you are currently on for easier navigation.
Each blog quick link page will display a paragraph summary of the topic at the top of the page.
Each individual link to the blog entries listed on every blog quick link page will display a brief synopsis of the entry's contents when you hover over the link with your pointer.
Plus other interface and technical tweaks not mentioned here.

For a sample of all the changes mentioned above, check out the Science & Technology page now.

As always, I invite you to check back and see the changes taking place, and I welcome any comments or suggestions you might have. Feel free to leave a comment below.

God's Toe?

2010-05-18T12:54:00.008-05:00

Those of you who follow the latest in particle physics have probably seen today's news from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) detailing how scientists have made a significant discovery that might shed some light as to how the universe originated.

The discovery centers around the question of how -- after the Big Bang -- matter came into being. According to accepted relativistic and quantum theory, when the universe exploded into existence an equal amount of both matter and antimatter should have been created and, simultaneously, canceled each other out, leaving nothing left from which stars and planets could have been formed. As I understand it, the recent particle collisions at Fermilab have shown that when particles called B-mesons decay into muons they produce more matter than antimatter about 1% of the time. In other words, these tests appear to provide one possible explanation for how matter came into being. Theorists feverishly searching for science's definitive answer to the universe's true origins -- otherwise known as "the face of God" -- have referred to this discovery as possibly "the toe of God." Exciting indeed.

I am fascinated by the promise of particle physics in helping us understand how the universe works. But I am equally certain that particle physics can never ultimately answer the question of how the universe came into being, or why. Amazingly, ten billion dollars and seven trillion electronvolts cannot produce the answers that a $15 purchase at your local bookstore can provide. While it's not a scientific manual or collection of technical papers, the Bible is the definitive key to understanding both where the universe came from and why. These words speak for themselves:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

The simple truth of this single sentence is that God is the Almighty Creator of all that is. Furthermore, the New Testament reveals both how and why:

(Jesus Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20)

Jesus, who is both the agent of creation and the one by whom the universe is sustained, is also the purpose of creation. All things have been made by and for him. He is both the means and the end.

I'm not trying to cultivate an anti-science attitude. I love science and embrace it. But I also recognize its inherent shortcomings. Through science we can observe, with incredible precision and complexity, how the universe operates on both the largest and smallest scales. But those who are truly intellectually honest must ultimately confess that, in the end, the best science can do is point beyond itself in its search for answers.

Fermilab's physicists may have revealed God's toe. But Jesus Christ -- and he alone -- reveals God's face.

See in that infant’s face
The depths of Deity,
And labour while ye gaze,
To sound the mystery;
In vain: ye angels gaze no more,
But fall and silently adore.

-Charles Wesley, Hymns for the Nativity of Our Lord, 5:3.

Does Revelation 22:18-19 apply to Revelation or the whole Bible?

2010-04-26T21:55:00.000-05:00

So, does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply just to the book of Revelation or to the whole Bible? As I see, I think two things can be said here:

1. I think that the primary way to interpret the warning in Rev. 22:18-19 is that it immediately and directly refers to the book of Revelation. If we read the verses in context, it makes the most sense that -- at least textually speaking -- the words of Jesus here refer directly to the words contained in the book of Revelation. Notice that back in 22:7 Jesus says, "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book." So logically and textually it makes sense that "this book" in both verse 7 and 18-19 means the book of Revelation. Remember, it's not as if when John was writing these words he was thinking that his letter was going to be the concluding chapter of a 66 chapter book. He was merely recording what he saw and heard in his vision, and there can be no doubt that, at the most basic level, the warning in chapter 22 was for the book of Revelation.

However…

2. I think there is a basic principle here that is consistent with how the rest of Scripture has been understood and handled throughout history. From the earliest days of Judaism those who were charged with preserving the words spoken by the Lord knew that their duty was to maintain their precise accuracy. They took very seriously the words of Deuteronomy 4:2 - "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (See also Deut. 12:32 and Proverbs 30:6). The oral tradition employed by generations of Jews went to great lengths to ensure that the exact words were passed on. This was due not only to the fact that God commanded them as such, but also because of a larger theological reality.

The salvation that God provides is not based in some esoteric or philosophical teaching. No, the salvation God provides is based on His historical intervention in space and time. He did not free the Jews figuratively from the Egyptians, but literally. They did not symbolically walk through the Red Sea; the waters literally parted, the ground dried up, and they walked across on their own two legs. God literally saved them, and He literally spoke to Moses on the mountain and gave them the Law. The Jews knew full well that their salvation was based exclusively on actual words and deeds from God in history.

Therefore, it was of the utmost importance that they not simply preserve the essence of a teaching. Their duty was to preserve the actual record of the words and deeds. Therefore, they knew that to add or subtract, or to tamper in any way, with the Scriptures was to risk not only angering God but undermining the whole basis of their salvation. Thus the general rule of thumb with handling Scripture as a whole has been that it is hands off for any changing, tweaking, redacting, updating, etc. This mentality was adopted by the Christian church, which was originally comprised solely of Jews fully aware of and sensitive to this concern.

Since the words of Scripture are God-breathed, they are to be treated as sacred. So while the words of Revelation can textually be interpreted to mean specifically for the book of Revelation, theologically it makes total sense to interpret them to mean the entire Bible. The historical witness of the church confirms this handling of the Scriptures (one fine example is in Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Article 8). From the early formulation of the canon on, the warning in Revelation 22 extended to every book that precedes it. The Holy Bible IS the word of God, therefore it is hands off. Our duty is to preserve it (and it has been wondrously preserved, as I mentioned in an earlier post), translate it, and faithfully interpret and apply it

The Reliability of Scripture and Its Various Translations

2010-04-25T22:13:00.001-05:00

Recently I was asked to address the following two issues regarding Scripture:

1. The issue of whether or not we have copies of the Scriptures now that accurately compare to the originals.
2. How do you choose which translation to go by.

My response to issue number 1 is two-fold:

1. There is no other ancient document on earth that is as reliable as the Christian Bible. I won’t get into all the arguments to back that up, for they are many and covered adequately in plenty of other places. But the bottom line is this: The Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament that modern translations are based upon are very, VERY close to the originals, so close in fact that nothing else from antiquity even begins to compare.

(For more comprehensive arguments to back this up I would point you to a whole host of Old and New Testament scholars and apologists who make a great case for the reliability of the Bible. Check out stuff from Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, D. James Kennedy, Gary Habermas and Ravi Zacharias, just to name a few.)

2. While the first part of my response to issue number 1 deals more with the academic/apologetic side, the second part of my response deals with the issue of faith. This statement hits the nail on the head: “I don't believe that God would allow his Holy Word to be messed up by human beings.” In the end, that’s what it’s all about. No one can absolutely and 100% definitively argue from science, textual criticism, archaeology, etc. that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testaments that we have are exactly identical to what was originally written. That is simply because we do not have the original manuscripts, so we are left to do two things: Keep working hard to continue the scholarly efforts mentioned above, but also rest in our faith that the same God who graciously revealed truth about Himself to mankind will also be faithful to preserve that truth for all generations.

Think about it for a moment. If you believe in God then you believe in the supernatural. If you believe that God is able and willing to reveal truth to human beings, then is it such a stretch to believe that He would make sure that this revelation is not perverted? Why would God go through the effort to reveal something to us but allow it to only be heard by a single generation? That makes no logical sense. It does make sense, however, that if you believe in God, and you believe that He has spoken, that He would also ensure that all generations of people would have access to the same truth. This, in the end, is a statement of faith, which is ultimately where we must find peace. Even if there is some unresolved dispute about a particular text somewhere in the Bible, it does not shake my faith. I still believe in revelation, and so I believe that the answer exists, even if we have not discovered it yet.

As for issue number 2, I will build off my answer from issue number 1 and say that God can even preserve the truth of His word even when it is translated into other languages. Once again, if He revealed truth only to the people who could read Hebrew and Greek, what good is the revelation? Surely the Holy Spirit can move upon the minds and hearts of both the translators who work with the texts and the readers who read it so that the truth of revelation is preserved and conveyed. If we accept this statement of faith, then really all that is left is to determine which translation (and I’m speaking of English translations from this point on) is the best one to use. On that topic there is much room for debate.

There are different translation philosophies. One camp believes that only translations that are as word-for-word literal are useful, while another camp believes that what matters is that the essence of the meaning of the text is preserved, even if not the precise vocabulary or grammar. So you have some translations that are very literal (like the NKJV and NASB), while others are less literal and use more contemporary linguistic styles (like the NLT). Others attempt to navigate between the two (like the NIV and NRSV), while some are so loosely translated that they aren’t really translations at all, but more like a paraphrase (like The Message). Honestly, I think a case could be made for just about all of these mentioned above, just as long as you keep in mind what they are. I love the NASB when I am working on a technical exposition of a text, because it is so literal word-for-word. But I use an NRSV when I do devotions or preach, because the language is more poetic and accessible and is easier to read in public. In any given passage I think there is room for the Bible student to debate which translation more accurately conveys the original truth of the text, but in the end God can speak to the reader through BOTH. But this brings us back, once again, to the earlier points I made up above: we need to be sharp academically and be aware of all the technical issues, but we also need to have faith that the God who effortlessly spoke the universe into existence is more than able to speak to my heart here and now in this moment.

In no way does any of this comprehensively address all that these questions entail, but if nothing else we can garner a few principles from it all:

1. The Bible as we have it today is very, very accurate and trustworthy.
2. All major English translations we have today are very, very accurate and trustworthy and are built upon the most recent archaeological discoveries and knowledge of the original languages.
3. God can and does still speak to us today through His timeless word.

The Holy Bible is unparalleled in all of human history. No other ancient book is as accurate, and no other book is as relevant to human beings. Its truth transcends all times, languages and cultures and has as much to say to the Wall Street banker as the bushman in the Outback, because it was inspired by the God of all times, languages and cultures. What a magnificent book!

"To candid, reasonable men, I am not afraid to lay open what have been the inmost thoughts of my heart. I have thought, I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God: just hovering over the great gulf; till, a few moments hence, I am no more seen; I drop into an unchangeable eternity! I want to know one thing the way to heaven; how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end He came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be "homo unius libri." Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In His presence I open, I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven. Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what I read? Does anything appear dark or intricate? I lift up my heart to the Father of Lights: "Lord, is it not Thy word, 'If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God'? Thou 'givest liberally, and upbraidest not.' Thou hast said, 'If any be willing to do Thy will, he shall know.' I am willing to do, let me know, Thy will. ' I then search after and consider parallel passages of Scripture, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual." I meditate thereon with all the attention and earnestness of which my mind is capable. If any doubt still remains, I consult those who are experienced in the things of God; and then the writings whereby, being dead, they yet speak. And what I thus learn, that I teach."

-John Wesley, Standard Sermons, preface, 5.

Calvinism/Arminianism Debate

2010-04-23T15:35:00.002-05:00

Today I received an email via the contact form of this website from a visitor who asked the following question: Can you tackle the issue of Calvinism vs Arminianism and which has more bible backing?

Below is a modified version of my reply:

-------------------

(Visitor),

Thank you for contacting me via the contact form on my website.

I would love to tackle a specific issue that you are interested in, but you have asked a very broad question that could never be addressed in one or two blog posts. I would be happy to consider writing something on one specific aspect of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. However, if you are interested in reading about the broader topic in general and all its various tenets, then I would recommend you read the following:

Calvinism Calmly Considered, by John Wesley

Objections to Calvinism, by Randolph Foster

This website here arranges John Wesley's standard sermons according to theological topic. Since Wesley's sermons are absolutely loaded with Scripture, you would do well to read as many of those sermons as possible, particularly the ones dealing with topics relevant to the debate you originally mentioned, primarily the following categories:

Assurance
Backsliding
Conversion
Faith
Free Grace
Justification
New Birth
Original Sin
Providence
Sin
Soteriology

For brief outlines of many of these sermons, check out the Sermon Outlines section on my academic portfolio page.

I know this is a lot of reading, but it is a huge topic, one that has occupied the thought life of the church for hundreds of years by countless formal and lay theologians and which has massive ramifications. I would be happy to provide continual guidance as I am able along your journey of discovery and enlightenment.

God bless.

When Should the Bible Be Taken Literally?

2010-04-13T10:12:00.004-05:00

Recently a friend asked me to comment on the Bible in regards to inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, etc. Emerging from this discussion are the following remarks (paraphrased from the original) concerning whether or not the Bible should be read as literal. I welcome your comments below.

(Friend),

I think you have said some good things here, especially in regards to pressing the issue of what we mean by 'absolute' truth. I would summarize my thoughts by saying that I believe the Bible to be "absolutely true in all it affirms." That does not mean that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Obviously, a good deal of the Bible is written as poetry. However, we must be careful that we don't allow this fact to be exploited, as many do, so that we end up reading critical historical narratives as simply allegory.

For example, so much of the book of Revelation is symbolic. I cannot say for sure exactly what is literal and what is figurative. I believe it is all true, but I suppose there is some room for debate on how it should be interpreted. However, I believe in the historicity of the resurrection, and I am prepared to back that up textually, historically and theologically. I am not willing to chalk the resurrection accounts up to poetry, allegory, or symbolism. Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead bodily. Period. It is up to us to be sharp in how we read and interpret Scripture, and that involves acquainting ourselves with the differences among various translations, the original languages (to an extent), rules of interpretation (otherwise known as hermeneutics), and the church's historical position on a given text. I think too many people are sloppy in their reading of Scripture, but this is a dangerous practice.

Back to my statement that I believe the Bible to be "absolutely true in all it affirms," this does not mean that I believe the Bible should be taken literally all the time. By saying "all that it affirms" I have to ask myself with any given text, "what is the Bible saying here?" Good Bible reading requires both discernment as to what is being said and faith to believe that what it is saying it true (even if not literal).

I think we can summarize this approach as reading the Bible "plainly," i.e. reading it for what it is: literal history is literal history, metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. This is the basis for what is technically called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

Whenever in doubt, I tend to take it literally. In fact, unless something is written in a form that is obviously to be taken as allegorical/poetic/etc., I simply read it as literal. Sometimes this requires me to accept supernatural intervention that supersedes natural laws (like, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea, which I take to be literal and not figurative or explained away by naturalistic explanations), but then again, I believe in a God who created and stands above nature -- which is a presupposition and a statement of dogma on my part -- therefore it is no great leap for me to do that. But in the end the true task is to ask, "What is the author trying to tell me here," and, "Am I willing to believe him?"

In sum, here is a nice little equation:

God is true (Romans 3:4) + God breathed out the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) = The Scriptures are true (John 17:17).

Is that helpful?

Dental School

2010-03-31T16:19:00.003-05:00

Last week I went through the most physically agonizing experience of my adult life. I had a tooth abscess develop at the root of one of my molars. Now I have discovered that there are two types of people in this world: Those who have had one of these and those who have not. For the latter, let me assure you: It ain't no walk in the park. In fact, this one infection completely incapacitated me for days, with virtually no relief even after taking the strongest pain narcotics, until I finally had the tooth removed.

But this post is not concerned with teaching you about tooth abscesses. Instead, I want to warn you about a dangerous phenomenon that I experienced throughout the process.

When the pain was at its absolute worst (i.e. when my pain meds wore off), and the agony was at its peak, I was singularly focused on - and border-line obsessed with - fixing what was wrong. There was no room for debate. The pain was my body's way of stimulating me into action, and action I was going to take.

However, during those few moments when I found even the slightest bit of relief, I began to go soft on my commitment to fixing the problem. The relief made me complacent with a false sense that things weren't as bad as I thought they were.

Perhaps you could argue that maybe the pain was driving me to irrational solutions while the pain meds offered me a chance to think clearly. But the fact remained that even though I couldn't sense its presence during those moments of reprieve, a dark and sinister menace lie waiting to unleash new waves of attack against my body that would only get stronger and stronger and threaten my health more and more unless definitively dealt with.

So what's the molar moral of this story? Well, I'm not really sure. That's sort of up to you. I merely offer you this little anecdote and ask that you draw your own conclusions. I suppose there are about a million different life applications/lessons you could take from this, and even if just one of them is helpful to at least one of you, then I will feel as though my suffering was not in vain.

P.S. Enjoy that disgusting illustration above.

Why I Oppose H.R. 3590

2010-03-23T10:55:00.009-05:00

As I mentioned yesterday, I have made available my list of reasons why I oppose H.R. 3590. You can find them here.

You may post your comments to my list below.

(Update: The list has been made into a dedicated page in order to make sharing and linking easier.)

Should Christians Practice the Old Testament Law?

2010-03-12T09:51:00.002-06:00

Recently I was asked, "What parts of the Old Testament Law are (Christians) still to follow and what parts have been abolished?" Here is how I replied:

The short answer, as I have come to understand it, is that, if you could break down all of what could be considered "the Law" from the Old Testament into categories, while Jesus fulfills them all, we are to live them out in essence, not in practice. For example, the civil and ceremonial laws with all their sacrifices were forever fulfilled in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. So we don't need to continue the practice of sacrificing bulls and goats. However, the essence of those laws was the reality of atonement, which Jesus fulfilled in his body and we are to live out by faith. The faith we have in Jesus is the same faith the Jews had in their sacrifices. It is faith in the fact that God looks upon atoning sacrifice and forgives sin and restores communion. Jesus' was the ultimate sacrifice that all previous sacrifices pointed to. He is the true propitiation for our sins, and by faith we live in that reality. Furthermore, the moral laws of the Old Testament, namely, the Ten Commandments, were never invalidated by Jesus. They are more than just some arbitrary set of rules picked out of thin air to make people act a certain way. They reveal the character of God and create the parameters for a meaningful, proper, and blessed way of living life. Jesus never abolished the Ten Commandments. Instead he summarized them in the Great Commandment: Love for God and one another.

So, as a general rule of thumb, Jesus fulfills and therefore "abolishes" the old ceremonial practices of the law, and we are called to live out the moral essence of the law. In sum: Jesus "abolishes" the civil and ceremonial practices, and consolidates the moral. Make sense?

Let me add one more thing on this topic of "abolishment." Read the following words of John Zizoulas – a Greek Orthodox bishop, and my favorite author – on this topic,:

Nothing was created perfect from the beginning. Everything, including especially the human being, was meant to grow into perfection; their truth lay in the end, not in the beginning. The Old Testament Law was not evil. It was good, yet only in so far as it led to the future things of which it was a foretaste and a preparation. The arrival of the future for which the past things of the Law existed brought about their 'abolishment'. But this 'abolishment' was no annihilation; it was rather confirmation and affirmation, since the truth of these past things, their ultimate being, their 'ontology', we might say, consisted in the future from which they drew their meaning. With the arrival of Christ, the Old Testament Law fulfilled itself: this is the meaning of its abolishment...The Greek Fathers describe the Old Testament as shadows of the things to come, attaching reality to what follows, not to what precedes in historical events.

I don’t know about you, but I find that terribly helpful.

For further reading on how the Old and New Testaments relate, see my article "The Unity of Scripture" at the bottom of my academic portfolio page. It doesn’t deal exactly with this specific topic, but rather the issue of how to theologically unify the OT and NT as a whole. Consider it side reading if you are interested.

Blog Updates

2010-03-05T09:36:00.005-06:00

Ok, so the update I warned you about the other day is now complete. This blog's address is now blog.truthdialogue.com. If you go to the old address (www.truthdialogue.com/blog) you will see a message informing you of the change and you will be redirected to the new address.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to:

Atom: http://blog.truthdialogue.com/feeds/posts/default
RSS: http://blog.truthdialogue.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused you.

In Their Own Words

2010-02-24T09:17:00.001-06:00

In light of the Democrats' latest scheme to pass health care legislation via the nuclear option, enjoy the video below:

Upcoming Blog Changes

2010-02-11T15:50:00.004-06:00

This is an FYI regarding changes coming to my blog. Blogger, the service I use to publish content to my site, is shutting off their FTP service (the service that does the publishing for me), which means I am being forced to reconsider how I publish content for you to read. I only mention this so that - in the event that you come to this site one day and things are acting funny - you won't freak out. I have a plan in place to make sure everything gets transitioned properly, but there may be a hiccup or two along the way. But be assured, my good and faithful readers, that I will get it all fixed asap.

The changes should take sometime later this month. I'll update you along the way as I am able. Stay tuned.

Black Holes and the Infinite

2010-02-04T18:36:00.005-06:00

Over the last year or so I have grown incredibly interested in the world of astronomy and theoretical physics. I'll watch or read anything that has to do with space, time, theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. Nerdy? Perhaps. But I came across something fascinating the other night that even the most unnerdy of my visitors might enjoy.

There are two scientific realms of study that seek to understand the universe. Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) helps us to understand the universe on a macro level, like when it comes to gravity and motion. Quantum mechanics (QM), on the other hand, explains the universe at atomic and sub-atomic levels. Independent of the other, each realm of physics is completely adequate, predictable, and precise in its own right, but once physicists attempt to combine the two they run into some serious problems. Nowhere else in the cosmos is this illustrated more perfectly than at the center of a black hole.

The theoretical existence of black holes literally fell out of Einstein's GR decades ago. But it has only been in the last 20 years or so that their existence has been proven. In fact, it is now believed that at the center of every galaxy in the universe exists a supermassive black hole. Furthermore, the presence of these supermassive black holes is not accidental to the formation of their galaxies, but rather essential to it. In fact, the size of any given galaxy's supermassive black hole at its galactic center is directly proportionate to the overall mass contained in the galaxy. Fascinating? Indeed. The cosmos just oozes of order and design.

But check this out.

It is believed that at the core of any given black hole is what is called a gravitational singularity, covered by an event horizon (the point beyond which nothing can escape the black hole's immense gravitational pull, not even light itself). It is in this singularity where all our theories of physics completely break down. A singularity is a point in space and time of infinite gravity. Infinite. That is very interesting. Put in mathematical terms, when you plug GR and QM into one single equation, the result you get is ∞ (infinity), or, more accurately, ∞ + ∞ + ∞ +∞...for infinity! While these results boggle the mind of the physicist, to the theologian is couldn't make more sense. I'm not suggesting that God lives in the center of a black hole. What I am suggesting is that, despite our best efforts to understand the universe from a strictly naturalistic perspective, the fact that the universe was created by something (or Someone) beyond itself is an unavoidable reality.

I bring all this up simply because I find it interesting. I'm sure there are flaws somewhere in my understanding of these complicated disciplines. But my point is justified. The universe points to its Creator. This is by design. The Bible reveals that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). He built into its very structure, from the most massive galactic cluster to the tiniest sub-atomic particle, signals of His existence. Everything we see in the universe has intrinsic beauty and order and screams for us to acknowledge that we are not here without a purpose. No, instead the universe had a specific moment in which it began, and everything in it is being pulled foward by a future defined by purpose and fulfillment. Our job, then, is to acknowledge this reality with how we live every moment of our lives.

The Beauty of Personhood

2010-01-29T16:40:00.003-06:00

As I sit here watching my 2 year old daughter marvel over the play-doh "snake" that I just made for her, I am struck at the amazing, complex, and beautiful nature of human personhood.

I am Sean Scribner. I am the same person I was yesterday, two weeks ago, and 10 years ago. And yet I'm not. What has changed? The change in my life is not just a matter of history. I am not different today simply because I am further along a linear path of time that now has a greater amount of history than any time before it. I was Sean Scribner in the past, and I will be Sean Scribner even after I die. Even if I change my name I will still be the same unique individual I have always been. Nothing can change that fact.

Yet as I look at my daughter in light of who I am I realize that, while I am the same person as I was before I met her (i.e. a concrete and unique individual who is completely non duplicable), I am not the same person I was before. She has forever changed who I am, i.e. my personhood. This change is not simply abstract, but real, something, dare I say, mystical. The same can be said in regards to my wife. She has forever altered my personhood. She has not made me into a different person (as in the sense of someone else altogether), yet she has forever altered my personhood in a real, unique, and permanent way. That is amazing to me.

I don't purport to exhaustively know everything there is to know about the human person. You can only know so much about such a mysterious thing from reading a book. Truth is, you have to be a person to begin to really know what a person is. And since in every moment of every day, in every situation, and especially in every relationship you have, your personhood is constantly being redefined, live life with a continued sense of wonder, awe, and appreciation of the fact that you are a human being, created in the image of God, who is forever three Persons in perfect loving union. Won't that make life that much more meaningful and exciting?

A Note from Sean

2010-01-27T21:43:00.002-06:00

I recently scrolled down through the list of recent blog posts and suddenly realized just how many of them have been political in nature. I guess I have become a little more obsessed with politics recently than I should, so for that I apologize. I promise that I will return to writing more on topics that are theological/devotional in nature.

In the meantime, you can always check out the blog quicklinks to the left to see posts on other topics. And, as always, I invite you to leave comments.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Teleprompter of the United States of America

2010-01-25T09:50:00.003-06:00

You gotta love this one: Obama using a teleprompter in front of a bunch of 6th graders in an elementary school room. Ha!

McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court

2010-01-22T10:28:00.002-06:00

Yesterday the Supreme Court abolished the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act as well as other federal laws dating to 1947 that limited corporate political expenditures. This basically means that now corporations and private labor unions can spend as much money as they want on political campaigns all the way up until election day. Is that a good thing? In short, I think the answer is 'yes'.

The President decried the ruling by saying it gave "a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," particularly "big oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and the other powerful interests" that "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." First off, I have a hard time listening to Obama lecture ANYONE about the evils of special interests. But assessing his statement objectively I would say that in some ways he is correct. This will open the door to a whole new world of big spending by people with particular political interests. And while that carries with it some potential for abuse, I think that it is the lesser of two evils.

The primary issue at stake, as the 5-4 majority of the Court saw it, is the issue of free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The campaign finance laws struck down yesterday allowed the Government to suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. In my estimation, upholding the Constitution and the rights it protects is ALWAYS the greater good. The influence of special interests will always exist, and allowing them to open up their checkbooks may become obnoxious. But that is the lesser evil compared to ignoring the First Amendment.

This ruling also levels the playing field among corporations. The ban on corporate spending made a distinction among corporations. In the end, the media ended up with an unfair advantage. It was allowed unrestricted freedom to say anything it wanted about an election, while all other corporations were not. Perhaps this is the real reason Obama and other leftists are upset with the Court's ruling. Despite how they claim to fight for "the little guy" and against "evil corporations" (which is nothing more than their usual class warfare), the left has the media in their pocket. In reality, this ruling actually helps the little guy. As Carissa Mulder puts it:

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media.

In the end, no matter how much money is spent by whom, voters are ultimately responsible to check the facts and know the candidates, something practiced by all too few back in 2008.

All-White Basketball League?

2010-01-21T12:46:00.000-06:00

Now I'm not taking any sides on this issue. I am merely a casual observer. But apparently there is a guy pitching an all-white basketball league. The All-American Basketball Alliance will only allow "players that are national born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race" to play in the league. Interesting.

Now once you get past your initial shock and outrage at such an idea, just think for a second. There are a whole host of institutions, scholarships, organizations, etc. that allow or deny participation based on race. Can critics of the AABA argue that an all-white basketball league is morally wrong while, say, an all-black college is not?

Once again, I am not taking a side here. It's not that I am afraid of being labeled a racist or because I want to be politically correct. (I have a staunch personal and professional record of non-racism, so I am confident in saying what I believe to be true.) Instead, I am not taking a side because, to be quite honest, I haven't thought this issue all the way through yet. Plus, I want to hear what you have to say.

So please comment below. Just try to be objective, fair, and respectful. I am interested in dialogue on this topic from any angle, whether religious, cultural, or legal. What say you?

Some Thoughts on Massachusetts

2010-01-20T16:35:00.005-06:00

I, like you, am shocked by last night's election results.

A year ago, I, like you, was sure that the coming year held nothing but frustration and disappointment for conservatives like myself. Given the overwhelming support for the new president and the fact that his party enjoyed significant majorities in Congress, it appeared as if the Democrats could move any legislation they wanted with ease.

But not so fast.

After a year in office, Obama has not gotten health care, financial regulation or energy legislation signed into law. Furthermore, every Democrat he has supported has lost to their Republican opponent, and not just in states where any given election could go either way, but in states like New Jersey, and now Massachusetts. Where has the magic gone?

The answer to me is obvious. Obama has attempted to bring a form of change that America doesn't want. Whether center-right or center-left, America is still America. The vision of our founding fathers of freedom, liberty, and rugged individualism is hardwired into our very DNA. We don't take kindly to tyrants, and Obama's agenda is nothing short of a soft tyranny. Americans may differ on our vision of the extent of the government's role in our lives, but most of us essentially want to be free from any form of despotism. Obama's ultra liberal, progressive, European-esque vision of government is something altogether foreign to the American way of life, and the people have spoken.

It is no small irony that a Republican, who ran on a platform of opposing the health care bill, won the Massachusetts seat held by the late Ted Kennedy, the champion of socialized health care. In the heart of the bluest of blue states emerged a flash of red, a signal that not only did Scott Brown defeat Martha Coakley in a special election, but that America still wants freedom.

Perhaps the tea party has truly found its way back to Boston.

The Obama List Grows

2010-01-11T14:48:00.003-06:00

In case you haven't seen it lately, check out my ongoing list of reasons why I do not support Barack Obama. It has nearly doubled in the last couple of weeks.

As always, I invite you to comment on the list here or suggest new additions by contacting me here.

Brit Hume on Tiger Woods and Christianity

2010-01-11T08:42:00.001-06:00

Was Brit being unfair to Tiger? Your thoughts.

More Broken Obama Campaign Promises

2010-01-07T09:37:00.004-06:00

Hope and change.

Check out this video showing Obama pledging over and over again that the health care legislation debate would be open, transparent, and broadcast on CSPAN.

Yet anyone who is even vaguely aware of what is going on right now can see that Obama is breaking this promise right before our very eyes.

I'll admit, he sounds good saying these things in this video. He's actually a very convincing liar. I would love nothing more than for the American people to actually see and hear what is going on in Washington right now. Sadly, however, the only folks privy to the health care deliberations are Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. These politicians are shady and their tactics are shameful. Americans deserve more and should demand more.

Vomit-Loving 'Christians'

2009-12-01T14:03:00.005-06:00

I don't know about you, but I don't want to go to Hell.

Yes, I am a Christian. I have been convicted, have repented, have been saved, etc. And I believe in the certainty and security of God's loving, redeeming, and saving work in my life. But, while there is security in Christ, there is no security in sin.

Consider the words of Saint Peter in his second epistle (2:20-22):

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire." (NASB)

Peter, of course, is talking in the immediate context about the so-called 'false prophets' of his day, who, knowing the gospel, pervert it with their destructive heresies (2:1), denial of authority (2:1), pursuit of sensuality and lust (2:2), and greediness (2:3). But the essence of this lesson is that, regardless of what you believe about Christian 'security,' the fact remains that no one is safe in sin. In fact, it appears as though the level of punishment for the sinner is directly proportionate to his/her knowledge and experience of grace. Yikes! That's a terrifying prospect.

Too often I think Christians live any way they want to just because they have experienced 'salvation.' Sure, we have to at least try to live godly lives, but, after all, who's perfect? All that matters is that God is our heavenly Father and we can always find forgiveness in Him. Right?

Well, God is our Father. And, like a loving Father does, He forgives. But there is a huge difference between those who live their whole lives in Christ and err verses those who live in deliberate willful sin and presume upon God's grace. I, for one, do not want to presume anything. Assurance? Yes. Security? Yes. But not in sin.

So let this be a lesson for all of us. Seek holiness with all of your being. Do not be content in sin, for "the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up" (3:10). With this in mind, what kind of lives ought we to live? Godly lives of holy conduct and godliness (3:11); spotless and blameless (3:14); growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus day by day (3:18).

I don't want to be a vomit-loving Christian who's going to Hell because I desired the flesh instead of God's holiness. I take these warnings literally and seriously. What about you?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

2009-11-20T19:32:00.003-06:00

Need 7 reasons to pray that the Senate does not pass its health reform bill tomorrow night? Try these below, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year while unemployment is at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.

Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused rises in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. After all exclusions, essentially the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.

Hurts Families: The Reid Bill includes an individual mandate that forces any American who does not have a federal bureaucrat approved health plan to pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per adult family member and $375 per child, with a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family. These penalties are indexed for inflation, which means they are likely to increase nearly every year. These taxes are fixed amounts based on family size, not income. A family of at least two adults and two children is actually worse off under the Senate bill if they make less than $99,350 a year. The only nod to affordability is a “hardship exemption” if the lowest available premium for a bare-bones plan is more than 8 percent of your income. But that saves you money only if your income is less than $28,125 a year.

Hurts Poor: The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.

Hurts States: The Reid bill expands Medicaid eligibility for people below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Even with a provision aimed at Senator Landrieu’s Louisiana that picks up some state costs, the CBO estimates that state spending under the Medicaid provisions will still increase by $25 billion. The Democratic Governor of Tennessee Phil Bredesen told a state budget meeting this Wednesday: “I wish every member of Congress would have to come sit in this room and listen to the real world of what’s going on in Medicaid today. I mean how can you listen to this stuff and the stuff you are talking about eliminating just to get through this and then talk about adding a whole bunch of new expenses onto the states.”

Funds Abortion: Unlike the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment which treats abortion funding the same way the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan does (the same health insurance all members of Congress have), the Reid Bill fosters taxpayer funding of elective abortion by authorizing the HHS Secretary to create a funding scheme that will permit inclusion of abortion coverage in the bill’s public option and mandates the inclusion of at least one plan with elective abortion coverage in each state’s health insurance exchange.

Hides True Costs: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Reid Bill as written would spend less than $900 billion over the next ten years. But the CBO is only allowed to score what Congress says it will do, not what everybody knows it actually will do. So the CBO warns: “These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades which is often not the case for major legislation … The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if key provisions of the bill were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.” The Senate bill depends on using cuts to Medicare to pay for its $1.2 Trillion coverage expansion. These dramatic savings, of course, assume that these spending cuts stay intact. Nobody believes they will. And the Massachusetts experience proves just that. Harvard Medical School Dean Dr. Jeffrey Flier explains:

There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.

…

Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.

That is exactly what the Reid health care bill is: a completely disingenuous plan to increase coverage while reducing cost. Nobody believes Congress can or will follow through with spending cuts required to keep this scheme from bankrupting our country. That is why the AMA can support Obamacare despite the fact that both the House and Senate bills call for at least a 21% cut in doctor pay starting in 2011. Nobody believes those cuts are going to happen. Nobody believes in this bill.

Take Action Against Obamacare

2009-11-04T09:25:00.002-06:00

The House will be voting on the 2,000 page Obamacare bill THIS WEEK. Among the list of items included are:

A job-killing employer mandate
An individual mandate that requires Washington bureaucrats to define what kind of coverage is acceptable
Burdensome tax increases
Medicare cuts
A huge expansion of Medicaid that will break already strained state budgets
The Capps Amendments that will mandate abortion services for the first time in the nation's history
And much more.

Take action by contacting your representatives and senators now.

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

2009-11-02T19:34:00.003-06:00

Fox News reports:

The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in southeast Texas says she had a "change of heart" after watching an abortion last month — and she quit her job and joined a pro-life group in praying outside the facility.

Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus "crumple" as it was vacuumed out of a patient's uterus in September.

This raises an interesting point. Given the current legality of abortion in the U.S., would it be unreasonable to mandate that women considering having an abortion watch a.) a video of an abortion procedure, and/or b.) a live ultrasound of the little life inside of her?

There is nothing more fascinating and miraculous than the first time you see your own little unborn baby on an ultrasound screen. Even as early as 10 weeks you can see little arms and legs moving around and a little heart beating at 170+ times a minute. It makes you wonder how many women, confronted with the beauty of a living fetus and/or the horrow of its termination, would still go through the procedure.

What do you think?

November 2 Update

2009-11-02T15:50:00.003-06:00

Well, I have managed to miss the entire month of October. Oops. Sorry about that one.

Here we are in November, though, and starting tomorrow we're about to see what kind of political effect Barack Obama's presidency has had on subsequent elections since he was elected into office. The governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia are particularly interesting, and it looks very much as though the Republican candidates in both races will win, especially in Virginia.

I don't know about you, but I can't help but think that tomorrow will prove to be just the first major step of a significant political backlash to this president's and his Congress' radical policies. The American people wanted something different from Bush, but I don't think they wanted this kind of change. I know I sure don't.

Keep an eye out on the news tomorrow night as election results come in. And check back here for whatever commentary I might come up with.

As always, take a look at my Why I Do Not Support Barack Obama list. No cheap shots. Nothing personal. Just real substantive reasons why I don't support this president's radical agenda and why I believe he is bad for our country. That's all.

Hilarious Video

2009-09-29T15:50:00.002-05:00

Sermon on John 17:1-5

2009-09-25T15:23:00.013-05:00

Below you can listen to a sermon I preached in chapel at Wesley Biblical Seminary on September 17th. The sermon text is John 17:1-5. I invite you to listen, but, more importantly, I invite you to share your thoughts on my interpretation of the text, especially verse 5. So stream it with the embedded player or download it directly here and post your comments below.

Cap and Tax Indeed

2009-09-16T13:48:00.003-05:00

Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act. It has now become public that the Obama administration's U.S. Department of Treasury has revealed the potential costs of the Cap and Trade bill that passed the House earlier this year.

CBS news reports:

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

No new taxes, eh, Obama?

At Long Last

2009-09-15T12:49:00.001-05:00

Finally, President Obama and I agree on something.

The Green Culture of Death

2009-09-10T08:31:00.003-05:00

The Telegraph had an article yesterday contending that the best way to manage 'global warming' is through the use of contraception.

Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

The article's main thesis is that by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies through contraception, the global population can be cut significantly enough to curb the elevation in the earth's growing temperature.

I disagree with this thesis for two main reasons. First, I don't believe in global warming. We've covered the so-called 'green' movement before. There is absolutely no sufficient scientific data that suggests any change in the earth's core temperatures have anything to do with anything other than the normal cycles of the sun.

But more importantly, I don't accept the view of children presented in the article. This suggests that children are less important than 'Mother Earth' -- for the sake of the earth, let's cut back on the number of babies that are born every year. Babies = bad. Does that not bother you?

If not, perhaps it is because you have become too caught up in the culture of death that we live in. I say culture of death because it is a culture that does not value life. I saw on Facebook the other day a friend of mine who was 'disgusted' that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar were having another child, as if children are somehow an affront to human society. Here was the message: "*name* is feeling nauseous after finding out that the Duggars are having a 19th child...really, 19???...gross." Then below a comment in response reads: "that's just irresponsible. there's not room for all of us on this planet." What is so irresponsible about this? None of these children are going to be neglected or be left in need for anything. In fact, I would wager that every one of those children will turn out to be an outstanding person that will have much to contribute to society. But because our culture hates life, the concept of having more than 2-3 children is disgusting.

I almost want to tell these folks that if they're so concerned about the population of earth then go live on the moon.

It's no wonder abortion and gay marriage are so cherished today. Ours is a nihilistic culture that celebrates decisions that can only lead to death and scorn those that lead to life. I can only say that never in my household will my children feel as though the earth's temperature is more valuable to me than their lives are.

Sobering Budget Numbers

2009-08-28T09:52:00.003-05:00

If you are like me, balancing your checkbook can be a sobering affair. But imagine if your personal finances were anything like those of the Federal Government:

Since World War II, the largest budget deficit recorded was 6.0 percent of GDP in 1983. The Bush Administration oversaw budget deficits averaging 2.0 percent of GDP. The projected 2009 budget deficit of 11.2 percent of GDP would nearly double the post-war record.
The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.
While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama's budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

(Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation)

Lovely, huh?

High-Flying Hypocrisy

2009-08-06T10:07:00.004-05:00

Remember last year when it became hip to be outraged with those evil corporate CEOs arrogantly flying around in their corporate jets? Members of Congress self-righteously condemned "corporate greed" and made a public mockery of CEOs who used private jets as examples of Wall Street -- and capitalism as a whole -- gone amok. This was all during the time when Congress was promoting over a trillion dollars of federal money for 'bailouts' and 'stimulus.' And, of course, Washington liberals always need a villain to stoke the fires of class envy, and CEOs accepting government bailout money were the perfect candidates.

But here we are almost a year and God only knows how many trillions of dollars later, and the US House of Representatives has approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress. The House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, lopped these funds onto a 2010 Defense appropriations bill, yet refuses to classify it as an 'earmark.' How convenient.

Look, I have no problem with using private jets. But I do have a problem with elected officials meddling with the private sector, publicly demonizing its CEOs, and feigning outrage to amass political clout and stir up public resentment through the use of class envy. Apparently it's immoral for a CEO using company money to travel in a private jet to advance the company's agenda, but perfectly acceptable for a politician to use taxpayer money to do the exact same thing. Why the double standard? Why is it so morally incumbent that CEOs downgrade to first class to travel to and fro? Yet when was the last time that someone in Washington downgraded anything?

I am so tired of these lying, self-righteous hypocrites running our country. I can only pray to God that voters hold them accountable this next election cycle.

UPDATE: This morning's headline is that the number is now $550 million for jet upgrades.

Obama's Single-Payer Agenda

2009-08-04T13:55:00.002-05:00

Don't be deceived by the White House's spin machine. Despite their attempts to deny that Obama's goal is to ultimately create a single-payer health care system in America, they cannot control the world wide web...yet. Here is Obama, once again in his own words, assuring his AFL-CIO buddies that he is a proponent of single-payer health care, while subsequently acknowledging that a single-payer system cannot be achieved until the White House and Congress are first taken over by liberals.

This is just further evidence that what Obama says does not correspond with what he intends. In fact, it's becoming clear that whenever this President says he is not going to do something, he intends to do that very thing.

The 'public option' health care reform legislation making its way through Congress right now has the ultimate goal of destroying the private insurance industry and creating a single-payer health care system. But why don't the Democrats just say what they intend to do instead of using such covert tactics? Because they know that Americans don't want a single-payer system. In fact, over 80% of people with insurance are quite happy with it. The President and Congressional liberals all know that legislation for outright single-payer socialized medicine would be political suicide, therefore they must resort to secret subversive methods like the HR3200 Trojan horse. Just ask our good pal Bawney Fwank:

So you see, you have to ignore what is being said by Washington liberals and the state-run media. The truth is that they are hell-bent on taking over the multiple trillion dollar health care industry and subsidizing it with your tax dollars. They must be stopped.

Contact your Senators and Representatives today. Visit them at their town hall sessions this month. Let them know what the will of the people truly is.

HR3200: Little Bill of Horrors

2009-08-03T17:58:00.001-05:00

Don't be deceived by the title of this post. While HR3200 is horrific, it is not little. This 1,018 page monstrosity currently in the House of Representatives is the quintessential health care trojan horse. Below I have compiled a summary of some of the most disturbing sections of the bill, courtesy of the Liberty Counsel.

Sec. 113, Pg. 21-22 of the Health Care (HC) Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”!
Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!
Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get.
Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!
Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens.
Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!
Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government control.
Sec. 203, Pg. 85, Line 7 - Specifications of benefit levels for plans means that the government will define your HC plan and has the ability to ration your health care!
Sec. 205 (scroll down), Pg. 95, Lines 8-18 - The government will use groups (i.e., ACORN & AmeriCorps) to “inform and educate” (sign up) individuals for government plan.
Sec. 205 (scroll down), Pg. 102, Lines 12-18 - Medicaid-eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No freedom to choose.
Sec. 223, Pg. 124, Lines 24-25 - No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “administrative of judicial review” against a government monopoly.
Sec. 225, Pg. 127, Lines 1-16 - Doctors – the government will tell YOU what you can make.
Sec. 312, Pg. 145, Lines 15-17 - Employers MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan.
Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1 - Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay for their health care.)
Sec. 431, Pg. 195, Lines 1-3 - Officers and employees of HC Administration (government) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial and personal records.
Sec. 441, Pg. 203, Lines 14-15 - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” What?
Sec. 1121, Pg. 239, Lines 14-24 - The government will limit and reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income and poor are the ones affected.
Sec. 1121, Pg. 241, Lines 6-8 - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have; you’ll all be paid the same. “Service categories established under this paragraph shall apply without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service.”
Sec. 1122, Pg. 253, Lines 10-23 - The government “validates work relative value units” (sets value of doctor’s time), professional judgment, methods etc. (defining the value of humans).
Sec. 1131, Pg. 265 - Government mandates and controls productivity for private HC industries. “Incorporating Productivity Improvements into Market Basket Updates that Do Not Already Incorporate Such Improvements.”
Sec. 1145, Pg. 272 - Treatment of certain cancer hospitals: Cancer patients and their treatment are open to rationing!
Sec. 1151, Pg. 280 - The government will penalize hospitals for what government deems preventable readmissions (incentives for hospital to not treat and release).
Sec. 1156, Pg. 317, Lines 13-20 - “PROHIBITION on physician ownership or Investment.” Government tells doctors what/how much they can own.
Sec. 1162, Pg. 335-339, Lines 16-25 - The government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. Rationing.
Sec. 1162, Pg. 341, Lines 3-9 - The government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. This will force people into a government plan.
Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people!
Sec. 1191, Pg. 379 - Government creates more bureaucracy – “Telehealth Advisory Committee.” HC by phone or the Internet – dial 1 for your health care advice?
Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY.
Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 17-19 - Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney. Mandatory end-of-life planning!
Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 - Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends.
Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 10-12 - “Advanced Care Consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans - from the government.
Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which Doctors (professional authority under state law includes Nurse Practitioners or Physician’s Assistants) can write an end-of-life order.
Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).
Sec. 1302, Pg. 472, Lines 14-17 - PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION: One monthly payment to a community-based organization. Like ACORN?
Sec. 1308, Pg. 489 - The government will cover Marriage and Family therapy. This will involve government control of your marriage.
Sec. 1308, Pg. 494-498 - The government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating and rationing those services.
Sec. 1401, Pg. 502 - Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. Big Brother is watching how your treatment works.
Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 13-19 - The government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.
Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 21-25 - The government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the US, including your data.
Sec. 1401, Pg. 503, Lines 21-25 - The “Center” will collect data both “published and unpublished” (that means public & your private information).
Sec. 1401, Pg. 506, Lines 19-21 - An “Appointed Clinical Perspective Advisory Panel” will advise The Center and recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.
Sec. 1411, Pg. 524, Lines 18-22 - Establishes the “Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund.” More taxes for ALL.
Sec. 1442, Pg. 622, Lines 2-9 - To pay for Quality Standards, government will transfer money from “qualified entities” (government Trust Funds) to other government Trust Funds. More Taxes.
Sec. 1442, Pg. 623, Lines 5-10 - “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients.
Sec. 1442, Pg. 623, Lines 15-17 - “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you, including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc.
Sec. 1443, Pg. 628 - The government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” pre-rulemaking input into selection of “quality” measures. Those Multi-Stake Holder groups include unions and groups like ACORN deciding what constitutes quality (Sec. 1443, Pg. 630-31, Lines 9-24, 1-9).
Sec. 1444, Pg. 632, Lines 14-25 - The government may implement any “Quality measure” of HC services that bureaucrats see fit.
Sec. 1501 (beginning), Pg. 659-670 - Doctors in Residency – government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.
Sec. 1503 (beginning), Pg. 675-685 - Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.
Sec. 1601 (beginning), Pg. 685-699 - Increased funding to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. (Like the government with an $18 million website?)
Sec. 1619, Pg. 700-703 - If your part of HC plan isn’t in the government’s HC Exchange but you qualify for federal aid, you don’t have to pay.
Sec. 1128G, Pg. 704-708 - If the Secretary determines there is a “significant risk of fraudulent activity,” on HC provider or supplier, the government can do a background check.
Sec. 1632, Pg. 710, Lines 8-14 - The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers and suppliers admittance into HC Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.
Sec. 1637, Pg. 718-719 - ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services is REQUIRED to be enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare.
Sec. 1639, Pg. 721 - Government MANDATES that Doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for home health services.
Sec. 1639, Pg. 723-24, Lines 23-25, 1-5 - The same government certifications will apply to Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s health plan: Your kids).
Sec. 1640, Pg. 723, Lines 16-22 - The government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other HC service.
Sec. 1651, Pg. 734, Lines 16-25 - Proposes, for law enforcement sake, that the Secretary of HHS will give Attorney General access to ALL medical data.
Sec. 1701 (beginning), Pg. 739-756 - The government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (and you have to pay for them).
Sec. 1704, Pg. 756-761 - The government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to states (your taxes).
Sec. 1711, Pg. 764 - The government will require preventative services - including vaccinations (no choice).
Sec. 1713, Pg. 768, Lines 3-5 - Nurse Home Visit Services – Service #1: “Improving maternal or child health and pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Compulsory ABORTIONS?
Sec. 1714, Pg. 769 - Federal government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion and government control intertwined.
Sec. 1733, Pg. 788-798 - Government will set and mandate drug prices, therefore controlling which drugs are brought to market. (Goodbye innovation and private research.)
Sec. 1744, Pg. 796-799 - Establishes PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control your doctor’s education.
Sec.1751, Pg. 800 - The government will decide which Health Care conditions will be paid. Say “RATION!”
Sec. 1759, Pg. 809 - Billing Agents, clearinghouses, or other alternate payees are required to register. The government takes over private payment systems too.
Sec. 1801, Pg. 819-823 - The Government will identify individuals “likely to be ineligible” for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.
Sec. 1802, Pg. 823-828 - Government sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another bottomless tax pit.
Sec. 4375, Pg. 828-832, Lines 12-16 - Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans, including self-insured, to pay for Trust Fund!
Sec. 4377, Pg. 835, Lines 11-13 - Fees imposed by government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
Sec. 440, Pg. 837-839 - The government will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that are expecting children. This Home Visitation Program includes the government coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent (Sec. 1904, Pg. 843-844)!
Sec. 2002, Pg. 858 - The government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000 (That’s Billions).
Sec. 2201, Pg. 864 - The government will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps. The NHS Corps is a program where Doctors perform mandatory HC for 2 years for partial loan repayment (Sec. 2201, Pg. 864-875).
Sec. 2212, Pg. 875-891 - The government takes over the education of Medical students and Doctors through education and loans.
Sec. 340L, Pg. 897 - The government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure an adequate supply of public health professionals. The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of civilian employees of the United States as Secretary deems necessary (Sec. 340L, Pg. 897).
Sec. 2233, Pg. 909 - The government will develop, build and run Public Health Training Centers.
Sec. 2241, Pg. 912-913 - Government starts a HC affirmative action program under the guise of diversity scholarships.
Sec. 2251, Pg. 915 - Government MANDATES cultural and linguistic competency training for HC professionals.
Sec. 3111, Pg. 931 - The government will establish a Preventative and Wellness Trust fund, with initial cost of $30,800,000,000 (Billions more).
Sec. 3121, Pg. 934, Lines 21-22 - Government will identify specific goals and objectives for prevention and wellness activities. More control of your life.
Sec. 3121, Pg. 935, Lines 1-2 - The government will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards.” They will tell us what to eat?
Sec. 3131, Pg. 942, Lines 22-25 - “Task Force on Community Preventive Services.” More government? Under the Offices of Surgeon General, Public Health Services, Minority Health and Women’s Health.
Sec. 3141, Pg. 949-979 - BIG GOVERNMENT core public health infrastructure includes workforce capacity, lab systems, health information systems, etc.
Sec. 2511, Pg. 992 - Government will establish school-based “health” clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted. These clinics will be integrated into the school environment (Sec. 399Z-1, Pg. 993). More government brainwashing in school.
Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 - The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Folks, we only have a few weeks to tell our elected officials that we oppose the most massive centralized governmental power-grab in our country's history. Contact your Senators and Representatives today!

Obama In His Own Words

2009-08-03T08:36:00.004-05:00

Below is a video of Obama, in his own words, asserting that a public health care 'option' is the best road to a single-payer system:

It's no wonder that senators and representatives are coming home for their summer recess to find angry constituents in grocery store parking lots and town hall meetings:

I will soon be posting some content actually found in HR 3200, the bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives. If you have not read any of it yet, I can assure you that it is quite frightening.

603 Taxing Ambulance Rides

2009-07-30T09:54:00.004-05:00

According to a story by WGRZ, from January 2006 to May 2009, an unemployed and uninsured man in Buffalo, NY took over 600 ambulance rides to the hospital. Guess how much it cost him: nothing. Guess how much it cost the taxpayers of New York: well, Medicaid doled out $118,158. In addition, the ambulance company had to eat another $250,000. But those numbers could have been much worse. The man claims he make at least another thousand requests for transportation that weren't fulfilled. Good grief.

The problem with this situation, as I see it, is two-fold. The most obvious, of course, is the fact that this guy uses an ambulance as a taxi cab at the expense of others. But you also have to consider that the ambulance company probably has to raise the costs of their services just to recoup money they lose to people like this guy. It's no wonder health coverage is so expensive. Between frivolous law suits and moochers off the system, hospitals and emergency services have to find a way to continue operating.

If Obamacare is passed this Fall, you can bet that scenarios like this one will occur by the millions as people cash in on "free" health care. God save us all.

The Evil of Socialized Health Care

2009-07-28T10:11:00.004-05:00

This week the US House of Representatives stands poised to vote on a health care reform bill that will essentially socialize our health care system. At the risk of understatement, this is a very important week in our nation's history.

No one argues that America's $2.4 trillion health care system doesn't need to be reformed, but socializing America's health care system is a solution that will most certainly produce horrible results. The vision of a quality, efficient, and affordable single-payer public health care plan is nothing but a smokescreen for massive, centralized government control. Such a system, as I have oft repeated, does not work. I don't want a system where a committee, rather than my doctor, makes life and death decisions concerning drugs and treatment. I don't want a system where recipients are treated as supplicants, where you have no choice, where you must stand in line and be grateful for what you get. Like all government-run services, a government-run system will be wasteful and consume an inordinate percentage of wealth while delivering a lower quality of care. Who wants a hospital that is operated like your local BMV? And who wants their health care to be rationed by a Washington bureaucrat? Such bureaucrats want nothing more than to reduce you to a mere beggar, lining up in the ally for scraps, relying on them for even the most basic of human needs.

Look at what is already happening in Massachusetts, where their socialized health care plan has not only caused a $9 billion gap in the state budget, it has also led to rationing of care including one in five people who have been turned away by a doctor’s office or clinic. Socialized health care destroys wealth and lowers the quality of care. It has failed everywhere it has been attempted. Yet the liberal remains unalterably committed to it, for ultimately it is the holy grail of government control, for if you can control the most basic of human needs (health), you can completely control the human. As Mark Levin puts it:

Once the individual is entrapped, the Statist controls his fate. The individual will be seduced by the notion that he is receiving a benefit from the state when in reality the government is merely rationing benefits. The individual is tethered to the state, literally and utterly reliant on it for his health and survival. Not only does the government have an ownership interest in private property, but it also has one in the physical individual.

Socialized health care will spell the doom of this country. Federal entitlements have already set our trajectory towards complete national bankruptcy. Socialized health care will finish the job. The unfunded obligation to Medicare alone is estimated to be more than $30 trillion. Together with Social Security and Medicaid, these entitlements are projected to cause significant problems for the US economy. The CBO projections are staggering. They warn us that if these entitlement programs are left unchanged that by 2082 the tax rates for the lower, middle, and upper classes will reach 25%, 63%, and 88% respectively. The CBO concludes that "such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Revenues will fall significantly short of the amount needed to finance the growth of spending; therefore, tax rates at such levels would probably not be economically feasible." In other words, we are presently headed toward disaster within one generation's time. If we go the route of single-payer socialized health care, we will accelerate and ensure the complete and catastrophic meltdown of the American economy and way of life.

It's not as though I, as a conservative, don't care about the health and well-being of American citizens. On the contrary, it is because of my love for this country that I will not stop opposing such disastrous legislation. Like the New Deal and Great Society programs before it, the promise of socialized health care is a pipe dream used for political purposes, one that caters to the ignorance of the entitlement-minded and will ultimately enslave us all to a lifetime of servitude.

But there is another way. We don't have to hand everything over to the Federal government (or, put another way, let the Federal government seize everything from us). Is it unreasonable for Americans to expect reform that gives families control of their own health care, provides greater tax relief, follows basic market principles of competition, and leaves the decision-making power to the States and not the Federal government? For the power-hungry Washington bureaucrat, yes, it is unreasonable for you to expect these things, for they run counter to their belief that they know better than you what is best for you and it threatens their control over your life. But there has to be another way than socializing the system. And the future of this country, literally, hangs in the balance.

Click here to email your elected officials and tell them you oppose this disastrous legislation.

Ben Stein on Obama

2009-07-28T09:33:00.002-05:00

The American Spectator
July 24, 2009
By Ben Stein
We've Figured Him Out

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.

They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.

The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.

These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.

Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.

The Health Care Bureaucracy Quagmire

2009-07-27T15:57:00.005-05:00

This delicious little diagram shows you just how complicated and convoluted the Democrats' health care reform proposal is. This chart was created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan. Scary.

Oh, and by the way, the health care legislation would deny health care to the elderly and force taxpayers to fund abortions. Lovely.

Chart source here.

Vacation Time

2009-07-19T20:06:00.002-05:00

Yes, it is vacation time. I am taking a much-needed break from the things I normally spend my time doing...including blogging. But don't worry, I shall return shortly. Bookmark me and check back regularly, or simply subscribe via ATOM or RSS.

Why I Do Not Support Barack Obama

2009-07-09T11:27:00.002-05:00

I am maintaining a running list of reasons why I do not support Barack Obama. This list will be updated on a regular basis, and it is a free resource that I encourage you to share with others. You can access the list from the permanent banner I have placed at the top of every page on the blog.

If you have an addition or correction to suggest, please use the email form on the Contact page. If you have a comment, or would like to discuss this list in any way, feel free to comment on this post.

Christianity and Socialism

2009-07-06T19:30:00.005-05:00

These days there seems to be a trend among some contemporary evangelicals to favor socialism over capitalism. After all, socialism is all about equality and justice, and capitalism is all about wealth and greed, right? These evangelicals, influenced one way or another by crusty old arguments by liberal Christian socialists from the beginning of the 20th century, love to cite Scripture as support for their argument. But I would like to argue for capitalism from a Christian perspective. Below you will find my ramblings on the matter, and I invite you to share what you think after reading them.

Let us begin by examining a Scripture passage from 2 Corinthians concerning the collection for the poor (8:13-15). Paul writes:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.

Does this serve as ample support for socialism from a Christian perspective? Not necessarily. Socialism seeks to create equality and welfare through government intervention in every aspect of human life. But Paul is teaching the Corinthian Christians that they are responsible to care for one one another individually in love. There is a vast difference between the two. The early Christians sought to provide for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves with the expectation that they would attempt to work and provide what they could. Charity without such expectations, or even worse, governmental redistribution of wealth, leads to envy, apathy, and laziness.

Capitalism, on the other hand, creates an environment of competition that allows freedom and motivation for individuals to be the best they can be. The potential to generate wealth means the potential to improve the quality of life and the opportunity to assist others. Wealth freely acquired is wealth that can be freely shared. Even the most selfish and greedy billionaire tycoon under capitalism inadvertently improves the quality of life of many, for it is his successful business that creates more jobs and opportunities for others, thus it is in everyone's best interest that his enterprise succeed. That way more people can provide for their families, their churches, and give more to charitable purposes.

This same objective is not accomplished through socialism and wealth redistribution. There is a difference between when the reallocation of funds is decided by Washington bureaucrats instead of the individuals generating them. In the church, spending is determined by individuals who love Jesus and their fellow man. They freely give out of their own resources that they have acquired through hard work in the free marketplace to the church in the good faith that it will be used in accordance with their own value system and worldview. If the church chooses to be corrupt or use its money for something incompatible with the giver's value system, the giver can choose to give their money to another church or organization.

But under a socialistic system, money is taken through taxation and used for every purpose under the sun. Spending decisions are made according to the special interests and political self-survival of the bureaucrat, not according to the Great Commandment. Federal spending is almost always wasteful and ineffective, and the people have no option to withhold funds in protest to how they are spent. While democracy provides the voting populace a check against how money is spent through elections, it does little for the Christian whose tax monies are being used to fund things they did not vote for. For example, I may choose to vote for pro-life candidates for Congress, and they may even be elected and vote in accordance with my value system. But what happens when the majority in Congress is pro-choice? The IRS still taxes me, and the ruling majority deems it appropriate to use my money to fund abortions. Multiply this scenario by the trillions and you have typical federal spending.

The social experiments in America have done little to truly enhance the lives of people. The New Deal extended the Great Depression by almost a decade and set America on the socialistic trajectory it is on now. The Great Society, the War on Poverty, and every other social initiative, while portrayed as a means to a Utopian end, have not ended poverty or ultimately improved lives, but rather have imprisoned millions in government dependency and threaten to completely bankrupt the country altogether. This is not what our founding Fathers had in mind. They knew that an open market would provide the maximum benefit as opposed to using the government to enact their own vision of social justice.

Consider the words of FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who wrote in his private diary that "we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" (Lawrence W. Reed, Great Myths, 15) FDR tried socialism and it failed. That is because Government cannot add value to the economy. It simply takes money from one group through taxation and gives it to another. This does not create wealth or prosperity, just debt, deficits, inflation, and higher taxes.

The Bible never describes God's plan for mankind as the equal redistribution of wealth among all people through a centralized government. The New Testament teaches that Christians should live peacefully despite whatever form their secular governments may take and give generously to those in need. The Old Testament teaches that the Israelite's land ultimately belonged to God, and while they were required to pay a tithe, be generous with the poor, and to refrain from profiting from their misfortune, the children of Israel were allowed to honestly earn whatever they could. God never commanded His people to redistribute their own personal wealth, with only a few exceptions.

On a more philosophical note, how socialism and capitalism view the individual has relevance to the Christian. Democracy, coupled with capitalism, extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man and woman. Socialism reduces the individual person to a number. In Christianity, there is no Jew, Greek, or Gentile. It does not operate according to class, race, color, or gender. Yet these are all the socialist sees. People are not individuals, but rather groups. Capitalism and the free market see no such thing. As Mark Levin puts it in Liberty and Tyrrany (p.62):

(The free market) discriminates against no race, religion, or gender. The truck driver does not know the skin color of the individuals who produce the diesel fuel for his vehicle; the cook does not know the religion of the dairy farmers who supply milk to his resturant; and the airline passenger does not know the gender of the factory worker who manufactures the commercial aircraft that transports him--nor do they care.

While the individuals who make up the market may have their own particular biases, the market as a system itself does not. Socialism, on the other hand, operates according to classes by default. The individual has no value compared to the class. This is anti-Trinitarian and thus anti-Christian. Social Trinitarianism affirms the one in the context of the many. Socialism dissolves the one among the many, essentially annihilating the individual.

Capitalism is not perfect. That is because it is comprised of imperfect people. Like all good things, it can be perverted. Greed and corruption do exist, but as I have stated above, even the evils of a few can benefit the many. The greater good of capitalism's benefits overwhelms its potential for evil, whereas the impossible Utopian vision of socialism ultimately benefits no one. The rich have less, and thus have less to give. The middle and lower classes become irrevocably dependent upon, and thus wards of, the State. Personal initiative, accountability, and responsibility are lost and the human spirit is destroyed.

The American civil society, comprised of churches, charities, and philanthropic institutions that help those in need, is the greatest and most generous in the world. But it is the State, not rugged individualism, that destroys civil society and societal compassion. When the government takes over the social roles of the civil society, social justice never prevails, despite the promises of politicians. Don't agree? Just take a look at the civil societies of every socialist European nation.

The New Testament does contain examples of the church pulling together its resources to meet the needs of the down and out. The church should operate in like fashion today. But these passages are hardly justification for embracing socialism in America. The works of charity and meeting the needs of the poor belong to the church. The failed social experiments of Europe and now America can never do the work of the church at her best.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." ~Benjamin Franklin

Stimulated Yet?

2009-07-02T10:39:00.007-05:00

With employers in the U.S. cutting 467,000 jobs in June, the unemployment rate rising to 9.5 percent, and hourly earnings stagnating, many in America are really starting to wonder where the stimulus to the economy is.

Wasn't the $787 billion stimulus plan supposed to create millions of new jobs? Just 10 days before taking office, didn't Obama predict that unemployment would remain at 8 percent or below through this year if it won congressional approval? And even if there is an economic recovery once all the stimulus money is finally spent, will the economy be able to survive our country's ever mounting debt and its accompanying inflation, interest rates, and tax hikes?

On another level, is anyone surprised? Did we seriously expect to see real stimulus from spending money on things like children's wooden arrow makers, beer ingredients, a walking tour of Boydton, VA, the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine, urban canal inspection, a honey bee factory, a parking garage, a tattoo removal violence outreach program, cricket control, beaver management, a Center for Grape Genetics, a school sidewalk, the promotion of astronomy, "smoking cessation activities," toilet repair, or, ironically enough, pig odor research?

Now they're saying that we might need a second stimulus? Holy cow.

Folks, I hope you enjoy Independence Day this weekend while you can, because slowly but surely we are losing that which we have celebrated and been defined by for 233 years.

Finally Some Tough Questions

2009-07-01T18:11:00.006-05:00

It looks like the White House press corps might actually be starting to ask some tough questions. Even though the mainstream media in America is sompletely in the tank for Obama -- with the lone exception of Fox News, thank God -- giving him free pass after free pass and turning a blind eye to the real issues and what is really taking place, even they have a limited tolerance for state control of the press.

Today in his daily briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had to field tough questions concerning the White House's method for screening and preselecting questions for Obama's so-called 'town hall' session on socialist health care reform. Clearly irritated, veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas bluntly remarked:

The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and have controlled...

The video of Gibbs unable to either answer or dodge the questions is below:

So much for Obama's campaign pledge for openness and transparency. We're learning more and more often that there is a gulf that separates what this White House says and what it actually does.

Update (7.2.09): Here is more of what Helen Thomas had to say. She's been covering the white house since JFK, and she has never seen anything like this before.

Krauthammer on Obama and Honduras

2009-06-30T13:36:00.000-05:00

A Victory for the Civil Rights Movement

2009-06-29T22:11:00.003-05:00

Today the Supreme Court overruled Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's appointment to the Supreme Court, in Ricci v. DeStefano, where "white and Hispanic New Haven firefighters sued when their test scores for promotion were discarded when the city decided that not enough black test-takers received high scores. The Court held that it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for a city to throw out test scores for promotions simply because of the racial makeup of the results." This is a great victory for the civil rights movement, for the high court has ruled that men must be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

This is a sad day for Barack Obama. His appointee apparently has "a victimhood mindset that minorities can't get ahead in life unless government tilts the scales in their favor." Unfortunately for Obama, Sotomayor's prior rulings reveal who she -- and ultimately he -- really is. I'll let you connect the dots for yourself.

Lessons from Bernie

2009-06-29T11:11:00.005-05:00

The verdict is in. Bernie Madoff was sentenced to prison for 150 years. The man who operated the most expensive and elaborate Ponzi scheme in history is going to spend the rest of his life in a cage. And for good reason, too. The man cheated victims out of billions of dollars of their hard-earned money so that he and his wife Ruthie could live a life of luxury beyond belief. The man is an evil villain, for he has destroyed countless lives by swindling others and living off of their hard work.

The liberal media portrays the Bernie Madoff scandal as yet another example of Wall Street greed at its worst. But I see it in a different light. Rather than use this story as a tool to promulgate class envy and criticize capitalism and the private sector, I want to examine the underlying principle of what makes Madoff's actions so evil.

Fundamental to liberty is the possession of private property. As Mark Levin states in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, "Private property is the material manifestation of the individual's labor -- the material value created from the intellectual and/or physical labor of the individual, which may take the form of income, real property, or intellectual property." (p. 62) Human beings were created to work, created to imagine, created to be creative and spontaneous, to achieve ends, and to have a purpose. The property we acquire, in whatever form is takes, is tangible validation of our efforts, a physical reminder that what we do with our lives has meaning and purpose. It is true, materialism is the perversion of human achievement. Once material things supersede the immaterial in importance, the proper order of things become corrupt. But material possessions, in themselves, are not an evil.

Abraham Lincoln said it well:

Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable..is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may be rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.

God created human beings with the capacity to work, to acquire, and to share. But there is a huge difference between freely sharing what you have and someone forcefully taking it from you.

In the final analysis, is there any calculable difference between what Bernie Madoff did to his victims and what the United States federal government is doing to its citizens right now? Every day, as the federal government and its massive budget deficit grows larger and larger, private property ever becomes public property. The massive redistribution of wealth in America through taxation is the liberals' attempt to impose a governmental, economic, and moral structure on individuals through controlling and destroying the human spirit. The government steals what is rightfully earned for the supposed "public good." This public good is determined by the elected few whose motives are tainted by political self-survival and special interests. These people believe that through the redistribution of wealth they may achieve a Marxist utopia, and to them the death of liberty is merely a casualty of war.

Bernie Madoff's victims are left without their hard-earned money, and along with that their security and in many ways their children's futures. A lifetime of hard work of so many has been flushed down the drains for the benefit of those who did not earn it. My fear is that the same thing is happening in Washington D.C. as I speak.

Our Father's fought tyranny and died for the cause of liberty. They established a Constitution that served to restrict the scope, size, and role of the federal government. A day may soon be coming when this country's citizens may once more need to stand up and fight for liberty. I, for one, am not willing to lose this battle through ignorance and apathy. What about you?

Cap and Tax

2009-06-25T13:20:00.002-05:00

Congratulations, America. The Congress and President that you elected are poised to pass Cap and Trade -- which is essentially Cap and Tax -- legislation tomorrow. As the WSJ puts it, "Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions." Translation: Raise the price of energy consumption so that less energy is consumed. Sounds good, right?

Wrong. Cap and Trade is essentially just another tax hike (see The Heritage Foundation's analysis here). It will not only create a heavier burden on the already burdened lower class (who have greater energy costs compared to disposable income than the middle and upper class), but will have a devastating impact on America's GDP. The WSJ continues:

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

The Heritage Foundation says it well:

In the name of saving our planet from “catastrophic global warming” for future generations, what we’re really doing is ensuring they live in a world with less opportunity and paying for our mistakes through increased debt, all for a change in the temperature too small to ever notice. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

As I've said before, the whole point of the 'green' movement is control. "Scare/anger/disenfranchise enough people, and they will give you that much more control of their lives and the lives of everyone else." This legislation, which few in Congress will even read before voting on, is tyranny cloaked as a hero. What is being promoted as the salvation of the world is nothing more than another bureaucratic power-grab. These things are true: Climate change is normal. CO2 is a natural gas. Humans are not destroying the world with carbon emissions. And liberals in Washington DC will stop at nothing to control your life, even if it means forcing us all back into the economic stone ages.

Contact your elected officials today and implore them not to vote for Cap and Trade legislation.

The Truth About 'Cap and Trade'

2009-06-24T18:44:00.001-05:00

Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation:

The Statist's Insatiable Appetite

2009-06-23T09:30:00.003-05:00

From Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny (p.8). Simply brilliant:

The Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are on his next meal before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And in furtherance of that purpose, the Statist speaks in the tongue of the demagogue, concocting one pretext and grievance after another to manipulate public perceptions and build popular momentum for the divestiture of liberty and property from its rightful possessors. The industrious, earnest, and successful are demonized as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies governmental intervention on behalf of an endless parade of "victims." In this way, the perpetrator and the victim are subordinated to the government's authority--the former by outright theft, the latter by a dependent existence. In truth, both are made victims by the real perpetrator, the Statist.

The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does--whether the Marxist promise of "the workers' paradise" or the Great Society's "war on poverty"--the Statist demands ever more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind's existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist's ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect of his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority.

Thoughts on Nationalized Health Care

2009-06-18T10:34:00.003-05:00

No one disputes the fact that the health care system in the United States has problems. Despite the fact that it remains the best in the world, much can and needs to be improved. I don't think, however, that nationalizing is the answer. Here are a few reasons why.

There is no level playing field when the government enters an industry for which it sets the rules of operation. Despite Obama's promise that a nationalized plan will simply be one among many options for American citizens, a government plan will destroy the private health insurance sector. It has been likened to a Trojan Horse in that it is introduced as a competing option but will ultimately change the entire system to single-payer, that being you and me, the American tax payer. And if the public education system in America is any indication of what a government monopoly does to a given sector, that will be a disaster.

This, of course, is assuming that the Federal government would even have sufficient revenue to pay for such a system. Once again, despite the rhetoric from the White House, there is NO MONEY for nationalized health care, and there will be no money in the foreseeable future given a deficit that is expanding faster than the visible universe. There is already no money for the current medical entitlements that the Federal government has committed itself to, so how does President Obama intend on financing his multi-trillian dollar health care initiative? The CBO's preliminary estimates are that current nationalized health care legislation would cost up to $2 trillion over 10 years, with most of that being borrowed money. This same legislation would still leave millions of Americans without health care. And when was the last time that the government spent less than what it projected it would spend? The truth is that a nationalized option would grossly increase the burden of debt passed to American citizens in the form of new taxes and inflation without even accomplishing its utopia-ized vision of health care for everyone. It is farce, typical of political propaganda.

Furthermore, if we take a cue from other countries where the health care system was socialized we will learn its dirty secrets. Doctors will make less money leading to fewer people entering the medical profession. This will lead to a general lack of doctors and thus a rationing of care, with the government being the determining body of who gets what kind of care and how and when. The overall quality of health care in America will plummet, and we will fall behind in innovation and the advancement of medical science. In short, when the government takes over the costs go up and the quality goes down.

But perhaps the most dangerous aspect is more philosophical than practical. It has to do with the general role that the federal government plays in American life. The founders of our country did not envision a system where the people relied on the government for everything. Quite the opposite, the government, established by the people and for the people, exists to preserve and protect liberty, freedom, security, human rights, and individuality. Our country is great because it is a place where the individual has the right to pursue happiness and success through creativity and hard work. When you socialize, you essentially destroy the human spirit. Those who achieve become less inclined to do so, and those who don't have no incentive to try. Meanwhile, a bloated federal government, dominated by special interests and political self-survival, remains corrupt and inefficient.

There are a whole host of other problems with nationalized health care. These above are just a sample. To learn more about this topic from a conservative perspective, consider the Heritage Foundation's research center in general and their article on the Kennedy Health Bill in particular.

I don't know about you, but I don't want this government in control of one more apsect of American life, especially one so important as health care. There are other options available besdies nationalizing. We the people simply need to let our elected officials know that we want them to be considered.

I Trust Thee Now

2009-06-17T08:37:00.003-05:00

-From The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, by Hannah Whitall Smith:

Lord Jesus, I believe that thou art able and willing to deliver me from all care and unrest and bondage of my Christian life. I believe thou didst die to set me free, not only in the future, but now and here. I believe thou art stronger than sin, and that thou canst keep me, even me, in my extreme of weakness, from falling in its snares or yielding obedience to its commands. And Lord, I am going to trust thee to keep me. I have tried keeping myself, and have failed, and failed, most grievously. I am absolutely helpless. So now I trust thee. I give myself to thee. I keep back no reserves. Body, soul and spirit, I present myself to thee as a piece of clay, to be fashioned into anything thy love and thy wisdom shall choose. And now I am thine. I believe thou dost accept that which I present to thee; I believe that this poor, weak, foolish heart has been taken possession of by thee, and that thou hast even at this very moment begun to work in me to will and to do of thy good pleasure. I trust thee utterly, and I trust thee now.

Do you believe that God can be a present help in your wage against sin in your life? Is He strong enough? Is He able? I would challenge you this day to consider whether God, who spoke the cosmos into existence, is strong enough to conquer sin in your heart at this very moment in time.

Perhaps the question isn't whether or not God is able, but rather are you willing to let Him.

Truth Dialogue Has a Fresh New Look

2009-06-12T11:14:00.003-05:00

As you can see, Truth Dialogue - The Blog, along with the rest of truthdialogue.com, has undergone a significant overhaul. While I have updated the appearance, structure, and content of the site, the real changes come 'beneath the hood' so-to-speak. You will find that not only does the site have an enhanced appearance, but the pages load much faster and more reliably across multiple browsing platforms, including mobile devices.

I have worked hard to make the technical and visible aspects of this website practical and appealing. While I continue to complete this process I promise to continue trying to make the substantive aspects of this site worth your while as well.

Thank you for visiting my little piece of the virtual universe. Feel free to bookmark me or subscribe via RSS and come back often.

Obama Scares Me Too

2009-06-09T14:07:00.000-05:00

This from an open letter written by Lou Pritchett, former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

New Blog Address

2009-06-03T14:58:00.002-05:00

As you can now tell, the address for my blog has moved from truthdialogue.blogspot.com to truthdialogue.com/blog. This will not affect your access to my archives. They are completely intact. You simply need to update your bookmark.

In the coming weeks I intend to overhaul the entire site. Stay tuned for updates. Thanks.

British Wisdom

2009-05-22T10:43:00.004-05:00

Daniel Hannan is a British member of Parliament who has become famous from his scathing criticism of Prime Minster Gordon Brown and the British socialist model. Recently he appeared on the Sean Hannity show and among the things he said was this:

Your country is great and prosperous and free because government is constrained and because the visionaries who wrote your Constitution - who knew what they were doing when they drafted that document and who understood where unconstrained government leads because they fought against it - they created a system of checks and balances that would keep the State small and the Citizen big. Now if you start going down this road towards a more European welfare model, a more European health care model, more public spending, more spending on education, being nicer in your foreign policy, all of those things – you make your country less American, you make it more like everywhere else. And that isn't going to make people like you any more; it's going to make them respect you less. The reason that your country is respected and honored in the world is precisely because it has been as your founders understood, it's been the city on the hill, it's shown us how by adopting a model based on personal freedom and the decentralization of power based on Jeffersonian democracy and dispersed decision-making how you can make people prosperous and successful and strong. And the world owes you a debt, because the vision of your Constitution didn't just keep you free, it inspired your fathers to take that freedom to other continents as well.

This is absolutely brilliant analysis, and it makes me proud to be an American. It also arouses anger in me towards the liberal mindset espoused by our leaders in government - spearheaded by the President himself - that suggests that America is arrogant, shameful, and should be embarrassed of itself.

Watch the full interview below. Transcript from above begins at 5:18:

This is How it Begins

2009-05-22T08:59:00.002-05:00

ABC News has a blog piece today about how the White House is producing their own coverage of certain events.

When Obama had the UCONN women's basketball team come to the White House back in April, the White House press corps was not allowed to watch a pick-up game held on Obama's basketball court. Not only that, but "Obama White House officials decided to do their own media report on the visit, complete with cuts, interviews, and chyrons identifying who's speaking." And just like a regular television network, they even had a branding logo.

I know what you may be thinking right now... "So what? It was a private pickup game." Perhaps that is true. But knowing who occupies the Oval Office right now and his radical worldview, could this be the beginnings of a state-controlled network that pumps out White House propaganda 24 hours a day? Is Obama getting into the television business too?

ABC asks:

Is the goal to ultimately replace the pesky photographers who film what they want to and not what they're told to (not to mention the annoying reporters who ask uncomfortable questions about, say, detainee policy and bank bailouts)?

I would venture to say that the answer to that question is yes. After all, fascists always seek to indoctrinate the masses through their regulation and control of the media. This is just how it begins.

A Classy White House

2009-05-11T09:50:00.005-05:00

Could you imagine if a comedian had said she hoped Al Franken's kidneys would fail and President Bush had laughed at it?

You're one classy guy, Mr. President.

The Telegraph has a great perspective on this.

And for the record, this lying ignoramus got it wrong. Rush never said he wanted America to fail. It is precisely because he wants America to succeed that he wants Obama and his policies to fail. Wake up, America! Limbaugh is right, as usual.

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid

2009-04-28T09:18:00.005-05:00

Did you see the news yesterday about how Obama's backup Air Force One buzzed the Statue of Liberty with a couple of military jets? Apparently it scared a lot of people in the greater NYC area, and for good reason. When it comes to foreign policy and the global war on terror, most people seem to have forgotten 9/11. But when airplanes start flying low over Manhattan, the reality of the world we live in is all too real for the people on the ground. Check out the home video below of the airplanes coming into view and people beginning to panic and run for cover:

I just want to make one observation about this incident. I'm not going to comment about how incredibly insensitive and moronic it was for the White House to do such a thing and not let the public know what was going on. I'm not using this as another excuse to point out how constitutionally inept Obama and all his staff are. I just think that there is a moral to this story, one that I fear most people will miss, and it is this:

The people's reaction was proper, because these days when the White House is coming your way, you'd better run for cover.

Freddie, Fannie, Barnie, and Chuck

2009-04-27T15:54:00.007-05:00

The title of this post sounds like a fun little children's book about three ducks and goose. You can almost imagine the four of them dancing around a pond, splashing each other with their cute little webbed feet, and soaking in the sun as they play. Unfortunately, however, it refers to the institutions and politicians at the heart of our current economic mess.

Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, led by "Bawny Fwank" himself, love to blame the Bush Administration for everything without accepting any responsibility themselves. But take a look at the video below. It shows the Bush Administration, Senator McCain, and then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, warning Congress that without proper regulation and oversight Fannie and Freddie were in danger of collapse, which would have a devastating effect on the rest of the economy. Frank and Schumer, who lead attacks these days in the blame game, were both against increased oversight. Who's to blame?

It simply amazes me. Liberals advocated for the expansion and growth of Fannie and Freddie, pressured lending institutions to lower standards for loan and mortgage qualifications, resisted efforts to regulate, and accused all who opposed them for doing so out of racism, then once everything their opponents said came true they blame Bush and Co.

Washington liberals are nothing but liars and cheats. They don't stand for "tolerance." They don't stand for "social justice." They use these as a punchline. All they care about are the advancement of their own political futures, the consolidation of their own power, and ever greater control over you, me, and how we want to live our lives.

GE and Obama: A Case Study in the Corruption of Big Government

2009-04-23T22:19:00.008-05:00

Perhaps some of you wonder what the big deal is about big government. Well, among the many reasons I oppose such a thing, here is a very real and practical one that is taking place right now.

Everyone knows that NBC (MSNBC, CNBC) is a far left news outlet. They have aggressively supported Obama and the left agenda for years, and are now so far left that they permit garbage like this on their airwaves:

Meanwhile, GE has also heavily supported Obama both during the election and now while in office. Why do I mention GE? Because GE is the parent company to NBC, and at the recent stock holders meeting GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt confessed his company was "in the network business." The connection of GE and its interests in the media is deep. Immelt, along with NBC's CEO Jezz Zucker, have made no attempts to remain neutral in the media or to put a stop to the vicious anti-conservative hate speech like what you see in the video above. In fact, it has been recently reported that Immelt and Zucker have told CNBC personnel to stop criticizing Obama and his economic policies. It seems the GE family is intent to promote Obama at all costs, and the rest of us are left wondering why.

But get this. GE appears to be on the verge of a major payoff from Obama's and the Democrat's liberal agenda. GE is lobbying strongly for more bailout money, as well as the passage of cap and trade legislation currently in Congress. Apparently GE has set up a joint venture where they stand to make hundreds of million, if not billions, from cap and trade policy. Essentially we have a powerful company that controls a major section of the American media using its resources to get a particular agenda passed in order to reap gigantic profits. Does anyone see the problem with this?

And here is the problem with a big government. The federal government in the United States no longer sets the parameters for the free market to operate. It has become a major player in it. While the government intrudes into every sector of the market, politicians begin to have greater influence in its outcome. In a true free market system, a failing company like GE (whose stock as fallen an unprecedented 70% under Immelt, who amazingly still has a job) would either have to fix whatever is wrong with it or fail. But not in a market that is dominated by the federal government. In addition to receiving tax payer bailout money, GE instead has chosen to use its money and media influence to promote politicians whose liberal agendas so heavily alter the market that GE can reap astronomical profits from it. That is not fair.

This whole things stinks. Government intrusion in the free market, GE using its puppet news outlet NBC to promote agendas it stands to profit from, the fact that NBC/MSNBC/CNBC are so in the tank for a political party at all...it all stinks.

Fat People: The Real SUVs

2009-04-22T22:44:00.004-05:00

According to a report this week, fat people are responsible for greater CO2 gas emissions than skinny people. This following an earlier report coming from the EPA that carbon dioxide gases endanger public health.

See where this is going?

I'll let Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, connect the dots for you: "Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler." Now we already know that driving a "gas guzzler" is a mortal sin, so where does this line of logic leave fat people?

The politicization of global climate change is increasingly becoming a tool for Washington bureaucrats to control our lives. Let me state it like this:

Phony science suggests the global climate is unnaturally changing and that human beings are responsible for it. For the sake of the world we MUST do something about it. (Can anyone say, The Day After Tomorrow?)
Men and women in Washington determine what/who the culprits are in causing global climate change. Magically SUVs, private jets, and now fat people become the primary reasons the world's climate is changing and endangering us all.
What do you think is going to happen next?

We have yet to see the full impact of the liberal agenda. But I promise you it involves more control of your life. Who determines what constitutes a "gas guzzler"? Who determines what is obese and what is not? And who determines what needs to be done about these things in order to save the world? If we keep heading the direction in which we are heading, the answer to all these questions is the federal government and its politicians who make decisions based on how they can solidify their power base and victory in the next election.

That, to me, is a scary.

Does no one else see what is going on here?

Conservatives: The Real Terrorists

2009-04-16T20:25:00.006-05:00

How out of touch is Obama and his administration?

According to a document from the Department of Homeland Security, law enforcement officials across the country need to be on alert for citizens who are angry over illegal immigration, the poor economy, the increasing power of the federal government, gun control, abortion, and the loss of U.S. national sovereignty - otherwise known as "right-wing extremists."

Meanwhile, the Obama foreign policy strategy includes dropping the language of "war on terror" in favor of "overseas contingency plan, bowing to Saudi royalty, offering direct talks with Iran without the precondition of suspension of their nuclear pursuits, mending relations with Castro, and ignoring the threat from North Korea.

Translation: The real enemies to the United States are not those who want to blow up our buildings, behead our citizens, annihilate our allies, or destroy our way of life. No, it's those nasty Bible-toting, gun-carrying, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, anti-illegal immigration, pro-small government, fiscally conservative, radical right-wing lunatics.

Folks, the DHS claims that they are not monitoring ideology or political beliefs, but I'm not so convinced.

We are in for some scary times ahead. Better get ready.

Visit FreedomAlliance.org to read the 9 page PDF document yourself as well as Oliver North's response to it.

Some Reasoned Apocalyptic Observations

2009-03-27T08:56:00.007-05:00

I once really liked the Left Behind series. I was young, impressionable, and interested in the end times. Yes, the books are entertaining to read, but I learned long ago not to exclusively buy into one particular take on end times prophesy. In fact, I have opted not to speculate about the end times at all, focusing instead on what I believe end times prophesy is really all about -- living a life of holiness and service here and now.

With all that said, have you seen the news lately? Now trust me, I am not prone to grand conclusions or speculations, especially regarding the apocalypse. But I don't want to be an ignoramus with my head buried in the sand either.

Now that you've read my disclaimer and will hopefully not view me as a wild haired end times fanatic, consider some of today's headlines.

George Russell of Fox News reports that a new U.N. 'Climate Change' plan would likely shift trillions to form a new world economy. He writes:

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Just earlier this week Secretary of the Treasury and tax cheat Tim Geithner said he was open to a Chinese proposal to move towards a global currency. Granted, the tax cheat did qualify his statement by saying that such a move would be "evolutionary...building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union," but the openness to such an idea at all is somewhat troubling. Especially given the renewed global movement toward such an idea.

And who can ignore the global threats posed by rogue nations with nuclear ambitions such as the terrorism-sponsoring state of Iran and North Korea, or the emergence of the Chinese communist superpower that is buying up all the world's debt, or the many recent provocative advancements of the Kremlin, including the most recent news of a new arctic military presence.

All things considered, one thing is for sure: the world is changing. While I welcome the return of Jesus, and eagerly await seeing him face to face, the world in the meantime is becoming an ever more hostile and dangerous place to live. And even if none of these things above have anything to do with the end times, they still give reason for concern and demand that we do not remain idle or oblivious.

College Football and the US Senate

2009-03-26T08:58:00.006-05:00

(Update 1:19pm: I beat Rush to this topic by almost three and half hours.)

Economic crisis. Rogue nations threatening millions. New anti-American global alliances.

Apparently these things are not enough to occupy the time of the United States Senate.

The AP reports this morning that the Senate will review how college football picks its champion at the end of the season. It seems that the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) poses an anti-trust problem that "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year."

Please, God! I can handle the politicians in Washington increasing the federal deficit by over 60%. I can handle the politicians in Washington reverting to a pre-911 mentality and weakening our ability to protect ourselves from foreign enemies. I can handle the politicians in Washington using my tax money to fund every single liberal entitlement project from the last 30 years as the nation falls into generational bankruptcy. But please, Lord, do not let them touch college football! It is all we are going to have left when they're finished with what they're doing.

All sarcasm aside, the real issue here is not the merits of a playoff system vs. the BCS (which, despite its faults, is still the best system we have). The real issue, as I see it, is two-fold: 1. The government's attention being set on such a comparatively trivial issue in the midst of global chaos; and, more importantly, 2. The government's intervention in yet another sector of American life. Why does Congress have to tinker with college football? Why can't the conferences figure everything out on their own? Because Washington bureaucrats think they should be in control of EVERYTHING, even the most sacred of sports institutions.

I am disgusted by the surge of government intervention into every aspect of American life. Aren't you?

Danny Boy Stickin' it to Old Gordie

2009-03-25T09:20:00.002-05:00

As you listen to this, imagine that he's talking to Barry:

Barack Obama: The Selfish Coward

2009-03-17T10:52:00.005-05:00

(Update: Obama has since withdrawn his veterans' insurance plan idea. But we'll keep an eye out on this issue.)

This little gem should give you the warm fuzzies.

Yesterday it was brought to the public's attention that Barack Obama intends to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases. Meanwhile, as you will recall, Obama has been proposing a $634 billion down payment for health care reform.

So let me get this straight. Let's take away government-funded health care from veterans and place them in the private sector, and then add everyone else to the socialized health system. Simply incredible. Of course, some argue that by placing the vets in the private sector Obama is simply trying to overload it and destroy it altogether so that he can remake the health care system in his own European-style socialist image. But in doing so, he is hurting the very men and women who sacrifice their lives for the people whose government places them in harm's way. Does this man live in a parallel reality or bizarro world? Or is he just a selfish coward.

Once again, you tell me.

He Only Wants the 'Change' in Your Pocket

2009-03-17T09:24:00.004-05:00

Barack Obama campaigned on "change we can believe in." According to his logic, George W. Bush led our country in the wrong direction, and it is up to Obama to change the course and get us back on track.

But consider these statistics (courtesy of The Heritage Foundation):

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Heritage continues:

The only sharp break President Obama takes away from President Bush is the amount of money he takes from the American people. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. Yet even after taking $1.4 trillion more out of the private sector, Obama’s budget still would double the public debt level to $15.4 trillion. Between 2008 and 2013, the budget will add $5.7 trillion ($48,000 per U.S. household) in new government debt. The annual interest on this debt would nearly equal the entire U.S. defense budget by 2019.

All these numbers tell me one thing: The only change Barack Obama cares about is the change that is in your pocket. As Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Brian Riedl puts it, "President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the 'failed policies' of the Bush Administration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush's borrow, spend, and bailout policies."

Change we can believe in, indeed.

Obama's Greatest Virtue is My Greatest Fear

2009-03-13T09:10:00.003-05:00

Most politicians are slimy weasels whose positions ebb and flow with the tide of public opinion. They base all their decisions on the latest focus group or opinion polls, and cater to those most likely to get them reelected.

Obama, however, may turn out to be a better man than that.

So far, there doesn't appear to be any slime on him at all. It is quite possible that this man is no weasel. Instead, he might break the mold of the typical politician and prove to be a very principled individual committed to his ideas.

And this is what scares me.

In the 90's, our country enjoyed relative prosperity. Reagan put this country back on track after a disastrous Carter administration. Clinton, while as sleazy as they come, at least tried to work with the Republican majority in Congress, not because he was in any way non-partisan, but because he knew it was political suicide to do otherwise. In fact, I would contend that Clinton's sleaziness and lack of principles altogether is what kept his tenure as president from destroying this country. Ironic, huh?

But since Clinton, it appears as though the White House has been occupied by men who care more about their principles and ideas rather than the polls of popular opinion. Bush, believing that freedom and security were worth 8 years of demonization, stayed the course in Iraq and Afghanistan (even though a lot of his decisions weren't the best), and this may very well have cost him his legacy -- at least in the short term. And now comes Barack Obama, the radical leftist ideologue, whose commitment to far-left, socialist/communist principles seem impervious to the will of the people. Does that scare you?

I don't know. Maybe I wish Obama was just another slimy weasel of the Clinton mold. If we're lucky, maybe he'll turn out to be just that. Of course, this all depends on what happens in next year's election cycle. If America doesn't clean out Congress and get rid of the liberal majority, we might be in for some very scary years indeed.

The Future of Evangelicalism

2009-03-11T14:21:00.000-05:00

Pretty good assessment here.

Wasting No Time

2009-03-10T23:18:00.005-05:00

A quick observation as I watch Fox News before going to bed....

mod·er·ate (mŏd'ər-ĭt)
adj.

1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.

I chuckle when I think back about how Obama campaigned as such a moderate. The American electorate, including many of my good conservative Christian brothers and sisters (shame on you), just gushed over him, impressed with his eloquence, cool style, and calm demeanor.

But moderate he is not.

In his first 50 days, The Magnificent One has been anything but moderate. Reasonable limits? Not excessive or extreme? Not exactly. Instead we have this delicious little list:

The largest proposed budget/largest projected deficit...EVER
Reversed ban on federal tax dollars used for abortions overseas
Reversed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research
Closed Guatanamo
Countless corrupt appointees
Doom and gloom scenarios galore
And much, much more!

You would think that this guy would have spread some of this stuff out over the next four years. But he has just come out blazing! Good for him. I'm impressed. Catch the sarcasm yet?

Thanks again to those of you who drooled over his messianic glory and voted for him. This is great. Sarcasm. Again.

Today's Economic Fact

2009-03-09T10:27:00.002-05:00

Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

A core principle of the political left in this country is that our current levels of defense spending have harmed, and will continue to harm, our economic prosperity. So last month while he was defending the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said: “The biggest ongoing threat to fiscal sanity in this country, I believe, is an open-ended, ever expanding military budget that goes far beyond what is necessary.” Frank’s assertions about the scope of defense spending in the United States are just flat out wrong.

At the height of World War II we spent 46% of our GDP on the military. By 1945 that number had dropped to 34.5%. Throughout the Cold War, defense spending averaged 8% of GDP and since 1962 the average spending level has fallen even further to 5.5% of our GDP. Today we spend less than 4% on defense. Our economy has boomed multiple times in the past despite our government devoting much higher levels of our GDP to national security. Currently, there is runaway spending in Washington, but it is coming from President Barack Obama and the left. Congress spent more in just one bill–this year’s “stimulus” bill–than it spent on Afghanistan and Iraq combined since 2001.

There you have it. Use anti-war propaganda to cut back on defense spending while simultaneously bloating the federal deficit with entitlement spending. What do you think the liberal left is concerned about -- the overall safety of our country, or the safety of their own political careers?

You decide.

The 'Green' Benefits of Being 'Green'

2009-03-09T09:58:00.006-05:00

Oops, I just vomited in my mouth watching the video that Marshall Daigre posted on his blog Saturday morning. Sorry about that.

Marshall got me thinking again about this whole business about being 'green' -- not so much in regards to whether or not global warming is a plausible theory, because it's not. Rather, I was ruminating on the motives behind those who promote it, particularly those in Washington D.C.

I used to wonder why the liberal left catered so much to the environmentalist lobby. After all, it seems rather silly to let such an obnoxious and hysterical minority single-handedly dictate such a massive portion of their agenda. But the more I see what's going on in Washington these days the more I realize that the liberal left doesn't cater to the environmentalist wackos because they care so much about saving the planet. Instead, I believe that they embrace the 'cause' because of it's ability for them to assume more control of people's lives.

Sure, there are countless droves of morons who swallow everything they hear from the media and actually believe that mankind is somehow responsible for climate change. And sure, Al Gore may just be stupid enough to believe the stuff he says, but for the liberal leadership that champions the environmental cause it has nothing to do with saving the planet. You see, the only benefit that politicians see in being 'green' is political. For example, if they can convince enough people that your SUV is destroying the world, then they can convince people to let them tax you for owning it. Furthermore, they can generate doom-and-gloom scenarios in order to scare the masses into voting for them as the only ones who care about the world and are able to fix it.

Don't believe me? Look at what Congress and the Magnificent One are doing in Washington these days. They are making policy decisions based on fallacious science and propaganda, not because they actually believe in global warming (although some probably do), but because they can use it to generate more tax revenues. The current cap and trade proposals are just one example of how it all works. The bottom line is this: Convince enough people into believing that we're destroying the world with carbon emissions and you can pass ANY legislation that you want in the guise of saving the planet -- regardless of its effectiveness as a solution or its damage to the economy, the free market, or well-being of the private sector. After all, in today's socialist climate, the private sector is evil. Those rich white guys flying around in their private jets at the expense of the health of the ozone layer deserve to be punished, and their hard-earned wealth really belongs to every else but them, right?

This same principle applies in other areas too -- such as the fight against those evil tobacco companies, the so-called 'war on poverty,' affirmative action, hate crime legislation, or any other of the countless policies that have at their core a self-centered political agenda. Scare/anger/disenfranchise enough people, and they will give you that much more control of their lives and the lives of everyone else.

So it appears that the ultimate benefit of being green, at least for our beloved Washington bureaucrats, is the green. Ignore the truth. Ignore the consequences. All that matters is control. That alone is what drives the left.

Barack Obama, Our Fearless "Mis"leader

2009-03-05T12:43:00.007-06:00

Now I know that it appears as though I only ever have anything negative to say about our new President, and that is because it is true. I believe he is the most unqualified person to ever occupy the Oval Office, and America ought to be ashamed of placing him there.

But not only is he unqualified, he is also a liar. He ran a campaign based on platitudes and falsehoods, and his actions since moving into the White House have proven it.

Take the following video, for instance, from PMSNBC of Obama giving a press conference on budget reform dating back to January 6th, 2009. In the first 3 minutes of the video, then President-elect Obama makes several promises that he has proceeded to break over the last several weeks.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

He begins by talking about the need for responsibility with tax payer dollars (:45). He blasts the previous administration for accruing enormous federal debt and shares his growing concern over his inheritance of a $1 trillion budget deficit, and rightly so. Those facts are an absolute travesty and embarrassment. Obama then states, "It's time to stop talking about budget reform and start embracing it."

But look at what Obama has done since making those statements to the American people. The United States Congress is about to pass the largest single-year increase in domestic federal spending since World War II! Obama and the Democrat Congress is planning on ballooning the already $1.2 trillion deficit to $2 trillion and beyond -- that's almost 14% of our GDP!

Next in the video Obama talks about how his administration is going to set new standards of "accountability, transparency, and oversight" (2:24). To illustrate this point, Obama promised to "ban all earmarks." Let me restate that: Obama promised to "ban all earmarks." That is a direct quote. For those of you who actually watched the 2008 presidential debates and listened, you will recall in the first debate that Obama pledged to go "line by line" to catch irresponsible spending: "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." In countless other places Obama has restated his intentions for budgetary reform, and he is always quick to criticize the practice of earmarking. (Of course, this sounds silly coming from a man who requested $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a United States senator, including more than $90 million worth of earmarks in 2008 appropriations bills that raised discretionary spending by 8% over the previous year.)

And sure enough, Obama is now poised to sign into law an omnibus spending bill that is loaded with over 9,000 pork projects -- nine THOUSAND. He downplays his hypocrisy by stating that it doesn't count since it was "last year's business." And yet, in one of his first major opportunities to put into practice his eloquent campaign rhetoric, Obama is going to sign yet another major pork bill into law, line by line.

I could go on and on with examples like this. But I have demonstrated that Mr. Obama's words and actions do not properly align. He is a liar, and I predict that the only campaign promises he intends to keep are the ones that align with his ultra radical, socialist, liberal agenda to reshape America into his own image.

President Obama, I will not forget your words and subsequent actions here on my blog. When you are campaigning for reelection in three and a half years, everyone else will probably have forgotten by then what a liar you've proven to be these last few weeks. But I will not. You promised to "stop talking about government reform and start executing" (3:55). Well, I promise to keep talking about what a liar you are as long as you continue to be one.

P.S. And by the way, to all you Kool-aid drinkers out there, I am fully aware of the fact that the biggest earmarker in Congress is Mississippi's own Thad Cochran. I make no excuses for him, except one: At least he didn't run on a campaign promise to terminate earmarking when he had no intention of actually keeping his promise once elected.

Talk About Embarrassing

2009-03-05T11:32:00.003-06:00

One of President Obama's campaign promises was how he was going to reestablish respect for America in the eyes of the world. This was because Master of Evil, George W. Bush, had so globally shamed our country. So what was Obama's first gesture to America's closest ally, Great Britain?

According to This is London,

Gordon Brown has been given a collection of 25 classic American films on DVD as his official gift from Barack Obama.

(Brown) had tried to keep the present a secret, refusing to answer reporters who asked what President Obama had given to mark the reaffirmation of the special relationship.

One reason for the secrecy might be that the gift seems markedly less generous and thoughtful than the presents taken to Washington by the Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown gave Obama gifts that we very thoughtful and classy, including an ornamental desk pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet, once named HMS President, a framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to symbolise Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans and given to Queen Victoria, and a first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.

Brown received some DVDs. Are you kidding me?

Barack Obama has NO CLUE how to be President of the United States. He doesn't even have a clue about how to share gifts with friends. This man has no respect for the office and no clue about what he is supposed to do.

Enjoy your DVDs, Mr. Brown.

Talk about embarrassing.

Clint Eastwood is a Dirty (Harry) Gringo

2009-02-27T10:26:00.008-06:00

Normally I do everything I can to ignore anything someone from Hollywood has to say concerning just about anything. But I think Clint Eastwood is onto something here.

He is quoted today as saying that political correctness has made society humorless. He says,

People have lost their sense of humour. In former times we constantly made jokes about different races. You can only tell them today with one hand over your mouth or you will be insulted as a racist.

It really is true. You can't say anything that even resembles something that has to do with someone's nationality or race without being labeled a bigot or racist. It's ridiculous. Everyone is so stinkin' sensitive. Furthermore, it's ok for people to make fun of white people, particularly white Christian men, but everyone else is hands off.

I know there is a history to a lot of racial slurs. I'm not advocating their use. But we've gone so far the other direction that everyone is just too uptight anymore. Perhaps I should become a dentist, convert to Catholicism, then to Judaism, and move to Poland. Then I would have total joke-telling immunity....

Glenn Beck on Obama and Socialism

2009-02-05T11:14:00.002-06:00

Very funny (Glenn Beck). Very scary (Barack Obama).

Nancy Padopesy

2009-02-04T13:35:00.002-06:00

An Inconvenient...Life?

2009-01-28T08:37:00.004-06:00

According to Great Britain's top 'green adviser,' families with more than two children are a strain on the environment. According to Times Online,

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.

Porrit considers having more than two children 'irresponsible.' Isn't this amazing? We're finally seeing the logical end to the environmentalist movement -- the termination of life.

The US isn't far behind Great Britain on these matters. Remember last week when Nancy Pelosi said that 'family planning' (translation: contraceptives and abortions) would 'stimulate' the economy because it would cut the cost of health care and education for states?

Babies, to these people, are less important than the environment and the stock market. But ultimately this is not a battle about global warming and economics. Global warming is an utter farce, and everyone knows that you cannot 'stimulate' an economy without tax cuts. No, these issues all boil down to the most basic aspects of worldview. Obama, Pelosi, the American extreme left, and folks like this wacko in Great Britain are all nihilists. The rest of us, which I believe to still be the majority in this country, need to wake up to this reality now if we desire that there be any future for our children and grandchildren.

The Short Path to Disappointment

2009-01-26T08:59:00.010-06:00

It didn't take long for President Obama to disappoint. On day three of his first term in office he overturned an 8 year long ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions around the world. He has made codifying his nihilistic worldview a top priority, something many of us who actually still think saw coming all along. The rest of America, including a sad number of my kin on the so-called 'religious right,' have in many ways become mindless drones who buy into the latest media hype and swallow the rabid messianic sensationalism surrounding the single most liberal, radical, inexperienced, and unqualified President in American history. This move to further enable abortion on a global scale will prove to only be the start of a long process of moral decay oozing from the pen of the Oval Office, which forces us to wonder if moral issues even matter to the majority of the voting populace anymore.

I choose to believe Archbishop Rino Fisichella in his assessment,

"I do not believe that those who voted for (Obama) took into consideration ethical themes, which were astutely left aside during the election debate. The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team."

If this statement is true then there is still hope. No, not 'hype' like what surrounds President Obama. But hope. Hope that Americans haven't completely abandoned what is good and decent. Hope that after a temporary blindness due to fear and uncertainty the light of reason and the use of sound judgment will once more prevail. Hope that innocent human life will yet again be considered more valuable than a stock portfolio.

If the Archbishop's statement is not true, then we as a nation have traveled down a very short path to disappointment indeed, a path that all but assures our own demise.

Just As I Suspected

2008-11-07T08:54:00.005-06:00

If you're patient long enough the smoke screens will eventually give way to reality. Illusions and delusions will prove to be what they really are as the facts make themselves known. All this talk about an unprecedented voter turnout led by younger voters, first-time voters, minority voters, etc. was all part of the Obama/Democrat/mainstream media deception machine intending to generate inordinate enthusiasm for Obama supporters and despair for McCain's. The truth? It is just as I suspected.

This from CNN:

A new report from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago — or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.

Not only that, but

A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout.

This confirms my suspicion. When all is said and done, the election boiled down to voter turnout. Republicans simply could not generate the support they needed. This is what happens when your candidate has spent the last 10 years of his career in the Senate reaching across the aisle trying to be all things to all people. The bottom line: a Republican cannot act like a Democrat and get elected any more than a Democrat can act like a Democrat and get elected.

I respect John McCain very, very much. He would have been a good president, as opposed to Obama, who is about as qualified as my 10 month old daughter. But I could never really get excited about McCain, and it appears that the same is true for many of my like-minded Reagan conservative peers. This election, in many ways, appears to have been something of a protest election. Republicans are sick of this neo-conservatism characterized by big-spending policies and weak social values. Where is the next Ronald Reagan?

TruthDialogue | the Blog

A Beautiful Country

I Support Mississippi Amendment 26

Obama's Dirty-Mouthed Secretary

The Angry First Lady

Presenting the New TruthDialogue

Red Alert!

The Monks on Mt. Athos

Teachers Unions Explained

Be Still

Obama: Republicans Counting On Blacks Staying Home

Logos Bible Software 4

Who's Racist? The Tea Party Movement or the NAACP?

Bigger Than Hasselhoff

11 Reasons to Vote for Democrats in November

A Clueless White House

Dispelling Some Myths About Social Security

Our Social Security

My Friend on the Topic of God's Calling

Blog Updates

God's Toe?

Does Revelation 22:18-19 apply to Revelation or the whole Bible?

The Reliability of Scripture and Its Various Translations

Calvinism/Arminianism Debate

When Should the Bible Be Taken Literally?

Dental School

Why I Oppose H.R. 3590

Should Christians Practice the Old Testament Law?

Blog Updates

In Their Own Words

Upcoming Blog Changes

Black Holes and the Infinite

The Beauty of Personhood

A Note from Sean

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Teleprompter of the United States of America

McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court

All-White Basketball League?

Some Thoughts on Massachusetts

The Obama List Grows

Brit Hume on Tiger Woods and Christianity

More Broken Obama Campaign Promises

Vomit-Loving 'Christians'

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Take Action Against Obamacare

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound

November 2 Update

Hilarious Video

Sermon on John 17:1-5

Cap and Tax Indeed

At Long Last

The Green Culture of Death

Sobering Budget Numbers

High-Flying Hypocrisy

Obama's Single-Payer Agenda

HR3200: Little Bill of Horrors

Obama In His Own Words

603 Taxing Ambulance Rides

The Evil of Socialized Health Care

Ben Stein on Obama

The Health Care Bureaucracy Quagmire

Vacation Time

Why I Do Not Support Barack Obama

Christianity and Socialism

Stimulated Yet?

Finally Some Tough Questions

Krauthammer on Obama and Honduras

A Victory for the Civil Rights Movement

Lessons from Bernie

Cap and Tax

The Truth About 'Cap and Trade'

The Statist's Insatiable Appetite

Thoughts on Nationalized Health Care

I Trust Thee Now

Truth Dialogue Has a Fresh New Look

Obama Scares Me Too

New Blog Address

British Wisdom

This is How it Begins

A Classy White House

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid