 |
"Poll Supports Taxing Rich for Overhaul," read the headline in my hometown paper on this story about health-care reform. "Americans Sour on Other Options for Meeting Costs," added the subhead.
In other words, same old, same old.
I have to wonder how many of the people who take the tax-the-rich line pause, even briefly, to ask themselves what gives them a claim on other people's money, and a pretty much limitless claim at that. Not many, I'm afraid. It's habitual by now.
But they should pause. And more to the point, we should. We, meaning Christians. We have it on good Authority that it's a sin to steal. Should we be quick to conclude it's not stealing if it's done by the state? Automatically? Should we blithely assume it's OK if the government is democratic? Might that not make it worse -- increasing the complicity, and the corruption, of the people?
Shouldn't we at least ask these questions?
Yes, I know: There are mitigating factors. Health care isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. (I really know: I've had major medical bills with no insurance.) But the issues remain, and we still need to wrestle with them. And we can't forget that the people always support making "the rich" pick up the tab. The spirit of the nation isn't "we're deeply sorry to take other people's money, but we're desperate." It's simply "We're entitled."
And yes, I know: Scripture has many warnings about attachment to wealth and many calls to care for others. But those words aren't just for the wealthiest of us: They're for all of us. When we feel we're entitled, we're not getting our spirits into harmony with God. We're only doing that when we're voluntarily giving, not forcibly taking.
I'm not entirely closed to ethical arguments for government programs of this sort, though I'm skeptical of them. The trouble is, few people seem to feel they even need to make those arguments. They just feel free to take the money.
So let's talk about this. A ground rule: Let's not talk about the details or the practicalities of health-care reform. We've done that a lot already on this site, and we may do it again, but it's not today's topic. Let's focus on the moral and spiritual issues raised above. There's plenty to chew on right there.
I'm not going to lie. It was my first thought after seeing the alleged gunman's name, Nidal Malik Hasan, appear in the initial reports of the murderous rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 dead and 30 wounded. I sort of expected to see news trickle in confirming my suspicions. But it didn't.
It seems the mainstream media (as well as Army spokespersons) would rather reflexively rule out Islamic terrorism than let anyone consider the possibility.
I don't know, maybe conjecture about motives is unwise when reporting on something like this. Though I saw a lot from the MSM about the gunman not wanting to be deployed and being teased because he was a Muslim.
The news is only now starting to trickle in about possible motives related to his Islamic beliefs. Eyewitness accounts verify that he praised Allah shouting "Allahu Akbar!" just before he opened fire on unarmed soldiers. And he was already under investigation from Federal authorities for comparing Islamic suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to give their lives for their comrades. (More here.)
I know that none of this means definitively that this was an act of terrorism. We should pause while all the facts are gathered. But I can't help but think that ignoring the obvious is reflective of a society still unwilling to face the fact that there are Muslims living here who want to kill Americans in the name of Jihad.
And in case you think I'm being unfair to Muslims, consider the post-9/11 evidence of plots and attacks blogged about here by National Review's Victor David Hansen.
At the end of his of post, Hansen wonders how many more attacks against our soldiers and innocent civilians it will take before Americans begin resenting "the disconnect between what they are told to think and what they believe, on the basis of some evidence."
Say that you sign a petition to put a controversial issue on an election ballot -- the sort that inflames passions and provokes reactions from the rage-filled fringe. How would you like it if your name had to be splashed onto the Internet for anyone and everyone to see?
That's what will happen if some gay activists get their way, The New York Times reports.
The case in question comes in Washington State, where opponents of "domestic partner" laws gathered 138,000 signatures to put such laws on the ballot for Tuesday's elections. Some gay groups want courts to order all those names to be published online. And some of them semi-candidly say that the purpose is to force signers into "uncomfortable" conversations, to "shame" them.
I say "semi-candidly" because if they were really candid, they'd use the word that fits best: intimidation.
Lots of Californians who supported last year's Proposition 8, which affirmed marriage as a union between one man and one woman, can tell you all about intimidation. Widespread harassment has been amply documented. Now just imagine what would happen if anyone who so much as signed a petition could be a target of any angry person with a search engine. How many people would risk signing then?
Right.
It's tragically ironic that gays -- who so long have complained (often with good reason) of being victims of intimidation, living in fear, feeling forced into the closet -- should now seek to use it as a weapon themselves against those who hold to dissenting viewpoints on the issue of homosexuality in our culture. If anyone should understand how wrong these tactics are, it's gay activists and their allies. And a few of them do. But most of them don't. Or they just don't care.
It's not clear whether petition signers will be thrown to the wolves. That's in the courts right now and no doubt will be for a while. But something else should be crystal clear. Christians and others who warn that gay activists threaten their freedom are far from paranoid. And this is just the latest example. People who try to label the moral consensus of most human history as "hate" aren't just trying to expand their own freedom. They're also trying to shove their critics into the closet.
Call it the Warhol corollary to the dictum stated by military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz, who said that war was a continuation of politics by other means. Instead of armed conflict, we now have art as the continuation of politics by other means.
I wasn’t going to comment at first when I heard that the White House was directing the National Endowment for the Arts, a supposedly nonpartisan government agency, to draft the “arts community” into stumping for its political causes. This violates several laws, most particularly the Hatch Act, never mind the spirit of the law that created the NEA. (I like that in addition to soliciting artists, marketers and taste-makers, they also wanted to include “just plain cool people,” which makes me wonder why I wasn’t called.) I resisted commenting even after the White House denied politicizing the NEA and then got caught lying about it.
But I finally had enough when I saw that they hadn’t learned their lesson. This time, instead of going after anti- bourgeois, soul-patched bohemians, they targeted TV producers, some of whom seemed all too eager to be this administration’s lapdogs. (This, by the way, isn’t the first time something like that has been tried.)
The Obama administration’s attempted politicization of every aspect of American life, its demonizing of anyone who disagrees with it and its creation of enemies lists, is disturbing. Equally troubling is the fact that some of the Web sites recommended by their TV blitz include the likes of Planned Parenthood (“Planned Parenthood Los Angeles is currently seeking adults to volunteer as our High School Speakers”) as well as organizations with tendentious axes to grind on everything from the Iraq war to 9/11.
But that’s not my main point here. It’s that anytime artists allow themselves to be used by those in power, their art inevitably suffers. Plato, in his Republic, argued that even the best art makes for bad politics. Kierkegaard said that government-subsidized art was debased art and the artist who accepted government money had demeaned his soul.
At its worst, art produced to push a point of view is little more than propaganda, fascinating to look at but never held in awe the way a great painting, play, or symphony would be. I would think a true artist would want to stay as far away from it as possible.
But then again, some in the so-called “arts community” are not artists at all. Sure, they see themselves as cultural rottweillers, ready to “speak truth to power,” but in reality they’re nothing of the sort. They’re poodles, hacks and poseurs who are great at attitude but who are suddenly mute when those in power happen to see the world the same way they do. The money that comes along with it is pretty nice, too.
When you were a kid, maybe you declared some day to be Opposite Day. If you were feeling bratty, it gave you a chance to play gags like this.
These days, I often think, every day is Opposite Day. Take Saturday, when President Obama spoke to a well-heeled homosexual group, pledging support for various items on their wish list and reassuring them that he'd fulfill their goals in due course. "Do not doubt the direction we are heading," he promised, "and the destination we will reach." (I, for one, don't doubt it one bit.)
Yep, it's Opposite Day in America, all right. We're seeing a moral inversion. We've always understood heterosexuality as the social, cultural and (most important) divinely created norm, and homosexuality as a distortion — a corruption, in the proper sense of the word — of that norm. Now presidents pay homage to groups that celebrate that distortion and define anyone who upholds the old norm as a bigot. We're way past "tolerance" here. (That word inescapably implies disapproval.) We're into official endorsement.
This isn't the only area where we've seen moral understandings not just weakened, but stood on their head. Abortion — a vast evil enshrined as a "constitutional right" — is the classic example. As essayist Joseph Sobran puts it, "What could be more barbarous than the killing of an unborn child, by the choice of its mother, through the agency of a doctor, and with the blessing of the state?" Count the victims: the sanctity of life, the preciousness of the maternal bond, the heart and soul of the medical profession, the protective purpose of the government. If anyone really wonders why Christians pay so much attention to this issue, here's the answer.
I bring all this up because Christians are so often tempted to negotiate a peace treaty with the world — saying, in effect, "You do what you want; just allow us to hide out in our churches and wring our hands among ourselves." We'd like to imagine we can still be faithful in public life by stressing the parts of our faith the world doesn't mind (feed the hungry, no problem) while downplaying the parts that the world minds very much.
That approach, by any biblical standard, is a betrayal of our Lord. If we're faithful, we have to expect we'll find ourselves opposite the world — not just in our private life, but in our public proclamation.
Does that make you uncomfortable? Me too. All the more reason we need reminders of our calling. As it happens, Scripture is full of them. Like this one, which I heard in church yesterday (ESV translation): "They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth.... Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time, for it is an evil time." But we're not called to be prudent in this situation. We get the opposite message: "Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate."
For Christians in this world, every day really is Opposite Day.
In case you missed it, the Federal Trade Commission is now saying that bloggers should disclose freebies in their reviews. In other words, they want bloggers who say things like, "I'm enjoying the best Auntie Anne's soft pretzel I've ever had in my life," to fess up if someone from Auntie Anne's just gave them that nice pretzel as a freebie hoping they'd blog about it.
Having to admit freebies we've been given in light of our blog posts might make things a little awkward around here. Just consider a few recent posts.
In Ted's post Genesis Fun: Water, he opens with the line, "I really enjoy the book of Genesis." I'm afraid in this case, Ted would have to disclose that he was indeed the recipient of a freebie — that he was given a free copy of The Holy Bible as a child that contained the book of Genesis.
In the post A Small Case of Road Rage, Nathan talks about "S[h]ingles Vaccinations." Here Nathan would have to disclose that he lives in the Atlanta area, which is home to the Center for Disease Control. Surely, he got something from them to inspire this post.
Then we had this post called I'm here: Ellsworth, Wisconsin. After doing some Googling, I noticed that Ellsworth has been described as "Cheese curd capital of Wisconsin." Something just tells me that Holli, the submitter of this post, would have been pressured by the FTC to disclose that she has been the recipient of one, if not two, cheese curds in her life.
Just trying to do my job here, folks. Hope these disclosures were helpful as you think about rushing out and trying the products and services we mention here on the Boundless Line — such as those yummy soft Auntie Anne's pretzels.
Research shows that going to college makes you more liberal. Here's an article from Higher Ed on how college liberalizes evangelical Protestants.
Higher education has always been celebrated by some (and criticized by others) for exposing students to ideas that may conflict with those with which they were raised.
Scholars here at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association presented data suggesting that this shift in attitudes (a liberalizing one) applies to evangelical Protestants who either earn college degrees or live in areas with many college graduates.
Hm. Even this article seems to have a liberal bent. Nobody criticizes higher education for "exposing" students to different ideas; it's criticized for being liberal indoctrination centers that won't allow any form of conservatism, in any realm.
CBS News revealed yesterday that:
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
This information was not released freely by the White House, but was gathered through a Freedom of Information Act request.
This Cap and Trade bill, also known as Markey-Waxman, was purportedly created to combat alleged man-caused global warming. The thing is, even if it does go into effect, it will only affect temperatures by 0.05 degrees (Celsius) over the next 40 years.
This is one reason I keep blogging about global warming and its opportunistic alarmists: The ideas behind it have real consequences for each of us. Proposed global warming policies won't enrich the air you breathe; they'll only make you poorer.
The politicians pushing for this cap and tax bill don't care about that 0.05 degree change in global temperatures. They are simply using that as a smokescreen. What these bureaucrats really want is more control, and more of our hard-earned money.
One good thing about the debates over who should control our decisions about health care and insurance is that abortion is back in the news, creating fresh opportunities to revisit our national conscience. Dinesh D'Souza does just that in Wednesday's Christianity Today. He asks in "Sex, Lies and Abortion,"
Why then, in the face of its bad arguments, does the pro-choice movement continue to prevail legally and politically?
He answers his own question:
I think it's because abortion is the debris of the sexual revolution. We have seen a great shift in the sexual mores of Americans in the past half-century. Today a widespread social understanding persists that if there is going to be sex outside marriage, there will be a considerable number of unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is viewed as a necessary clean-up solution to this social reality.
And offers this insight:
In order to have a sexual revolution, women must have the same sexual autonomy as men. But the laws of biology contradict this ideology, so feminists who have championed the sexual revolution—Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, among others—have found it necessary to denounce pregnancy as an invasion of the female body. The fetus becomes, in Firestone's phrase, an "uninvited guest." As long as the fetus occupies the mother's womb, these activists argue, the mother should be able to keep it or get rid of it at her discretion.
What, then, is the solution. D'Souza urges a change of tactic. One that likely won't go over well in our current climate of hyper-sexualized individualism adrift from any moral ought:
... pro-life arguments are not likely to succeed by simply continuing to stress the humanity of the fetus. The opposition already knows this, as probably do most women who have an abortion. Rather, the pro-life movement must take into account the larger cultural context of the sexual revolution that invisibly but surely sustains the triumphant advocates of abortion.
It won't be easy, but somehow the case against abortion must include a case against sexual libertinism. It is time to return to the drawing board.
As believers, when it comes to sexual purity, if only for the sake of our fellow unborn brothers and sisters in Christ, we should be leading the way.
In today's wars, there are no morals. We believe the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets. -- Osama bin Laden
Just after the 9/11 terrorists attacks which killed almost 3,000 civilians, Time magazine referred to Osama bin Laden as the most wanted man in the world. Eight years later, he still is. And it's why there's a group of about 100 active and retired CIA agents in the Pakistani border region right now trying to hunt him down and kill him.
Here's a Times Online article from yesterday on why it's been so difficult to find bin Laden:
There has not been one credible lead on bin Laden in years. His nickname among some CIA hunters is Elvis because of all the bogus and fanciful sightings. The CIA has been successful in killing many of the senior al-Qaeda over the years but bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are different cases.
[Active CIA Agent Art] Keller believes bin Laden moves from village to village in Waziristan. He communicates perhaps just once a month, and by courier. He never uses a telephone. Mr. Keller believes that bin Laden arrives in each village with a small group of bodyguards, when he will sit and talk to the local tribal leader. A large bribe is paid.
Bin Laden is then the guest of the village, where under Pashtun custom, he must be protected. The main obstacle in finding him, Mr. Keller says, is that even if someone wanted to betray him — and collect the $25 million (£15 million) reward — there is no one to turn to. The local police know bin Laden is there. "If you report bin Laden’s location there is a good chance you will get killed," Mr Keller says.
"People in a position to give information can’t get it to anyone." Morale is still good among the hunters, he says, because many top al-Qaeda officials have been killed. So will bin Laden be caught? Mr. Keller lets out a deep breath. "I don’t know."
I'm thankful for men like Agent Keller who live far from the comforts of home in prison-like conditions to kill or catch the man who wants to kill me, my family, and my friends. And on this Patriot Day, I will remember to pray for the safety and success of the men hunting bin Laden.
President Obama's heath care reform initiative is in trouble. And many are wondering why all the young people who helped elect him are AWOL on the issue.
From the AP:
Add this to President Barack Obama's problems in selling his health care overhaul: A lot of the tech-savvy activists who helped put him in office are young, feeling indestructible and not all that into what they see as an old folks issue.
It's a crucial gap in support and one the White House may have to correct if Obama is to regain the momentum and get Congress to act on his top domestic priority.
Some say engaging young people on the heath care is a matter of media. Meaning, the President needs more technology and less town hall to motivate his "core constituency." But Lucinda Lake says that he'll have to change the message if he wants to get young people involved.
Lake, the Democratic pollster, said the lack of involvement by young people in the health care push may hint at a bigger concern for the White House: Some so-called Obama "surge" voters, who voted for the first time in 2008 and are largely younger and nonwhite, may not be as motivated to get involved in his signature causes, including health care.
"They say, 'I'm taking a break from politics, I'm uninformed about the system, I'm sick of Washington, I'm not going to help these people.' It's interesting that he hasn't countered that disengagement," Lake said.
To bring those voters back, Lake said Obama needs to draw on his own personal popularity and make the health care debate about him, rather than allow it to seem like a mishmash of legislation coming out of Capitol Hill.
I'm not sure Lake's make-it-about-Obama solution would work either. Maybe Americans (even young adult Americans) are simply worried about the government taking on too much, too soon ... and about government taking over too much.
In other words, if it weren't for the $787 billion economic-stimulus package, the government-led bailout of General Motors, and cap and trade legislation, health care reform that includes a public option may have been a little more palatable to the general public.
Some people lionized Ted Kennedy. Others demonized him. In the 1980s, I saw plenty of the latter. It landed regularly in my mailbox, with fundraising letters whose message boiled down to "Ted Kennedy will eat your children unless you send us money now." On August 26, 2009, the lionizing tone is dominant once again, for obvious reasons.
We're reminded that powerful men remain just men -- vulnerable to the ravages of an aggressive brain tumor. And men make poor angels or devils. I know something of Ted Kennedy's sins. (I know much more of my own.) And I have my own views of his legacy. But I'll leave it to others to hash over that, at least for now. There's something else to talk about.
The Kennedys have often been likened to the American royal family, a comparison that's come up again on TV today. Which reminds me of how British royal funerals used to be handled -- a tale I heard from my pastor in a sermon some years ago.
As best I recall, it went something like this. A man would portray the deceased king (let's call him Edward) approaching the gates of Heaven, where the guardian would ask him who he was and why he should be admitted. The king would respond with a long list of his regal titles and worldly honors, and he'd be denied entrance. He'd keep replying with more titles, and he'd keep getting denied.
Finally, the king would simply reply "I am Edward, a poor miserable sinner who needs to be saved by the blood of Christ." And then the word came back to him: "Enter, my son."
I hope that, in the end, Edward M. Kennedy was able to reply as that king did. And I hope you and I can do so as well.
As an individual living in a generally free society like the United States, have you ever thought about exactly what you deserve in terms of rights and privileges?
Are free speech and freedom of worship enough? Are public roads and police protection satisfactory?
Those things were enough for our forefathers, but if you're like many Americans today, you want -- expect -- more.
A whole lot more.
Whether you realize it or not, you've probably come to expect sufficient food and clothing, a roof over your head, maybe even government-funded health care. (None of which are actually guaranteed, at least not yet.)
And if you are Trina Thompson of the Bronx, you expect just a wee bit more.
You see, after Thompson spent $70,000 on college tuition, she expected New York's Monroe College to help get her a job, and to do so pretty darn quick. How quick? Well, when Thompson was still unemployed nearly three months after graduation, she decided that it was time to sue the school for failing to fulfill her employment expectations.
That's right. Thompson is suing Monroe College for $72,000. That's $70,000 for the cost of tuition, with another $2,000 for the stress of not landing a job.
Never mind that Thompson's academic credentials (2.7 GPA) weren't exactly top-notch. Never mind that the school's job placement office gave Thompson equal access to its e-recruiting Web site, through which she was able to contact potential employers. And never mind that the U.S. economy is in a recession, or that thousands of other college graduates have remained unemployed for far, far longer than Thompson.
According to Thompson's legal complaint, those reasons simply don't cut it:
The office of career advancement information technology counselor did not make sure their Monroe e-recruiting clients call their graduates that recently finished college for an interview to get a job placement. They have not tried hard enough to help me.
Forgive me if I'm not understanding, but it sounds like she not only expected these clients to notice that she had just graduated, but to actually contact her directly and request an interview. (And for all these years I thought it was the job-seeker's role to go after an interview!)
Even if you were less-than-pleased with your college experience, have you ever considered asking (suing) for your money back? And did you ever consider giving up after a mere three months in the job market?
Is this where our American sense of entitlement has taken us?
(HT: Alex Chediak)
Feel you were wrongly arrested? Maybe you can settle the matter cordially over beers! (Well, if you know the President that is). This today in the SFGate:
The black scholar and the white police sergeant who arrested him agreed to disagree and promised to talk again, a gracious conclusion to the first round of an eye-opening dialogue on race that allows President Barack Obama to get back to selling his health care plan to skeptical Americans.
After accepting Obama's invitation to discuss the July 16 incident over a beer Thursday evening at the White House, both Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. Joseph Crowley thanked Obama for the cold ones served on a patio near the Rose Garden. Neither they nor the president offered apologies for their roles in the affair.
I keep thinking of this verse Steve read to the kids last night:
It is not for kings, O Lemuel
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,
lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,
and deprive all the oppressed of their rights
(Proverbs 31:4-5).
Does anyone else find this troubling?
Did influential 19th century British scholar Thomas Malthus really say we'd run out of food? Did he really think we should kill off poor people to make room for the rich? Did he think disease should go untreated?
Yep.
Weren't we supposed to be wiped out by famine by now? Could all the people in the entire world fit in the state of Texas? With a house and a yard?
Uh huh.
America faces a manageable challenge: how to help a relatively small share of the population purchase health insurance. Obamacare is too big a solution chasing too small a problem -- like hunting quail with a howitzer.
So begins an article published today by the National Review Online. In "Health-Care Reform: Why Not Try Ownership?" author Deroy Murdock explains that "only about 8 million Americans are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status," not the 45.7 million figure that's being thrown around by those in favor of socialized health care. He adds, "Why not help these 8 million rather than overturn medicine for all 300 million of us?"
Murdock introduces an alternative to the budget-busting health care bill currently being rammed through Congress:
Rather than endorse such big-government overkill, pro-freedom members of Congress should promote a simple concept: Let every American own and control an individual health-insurance policy that can be transported among jobs, self-employment, graduate school, and life’s other twists and turns....
Health-care reform should give Americans the option of using money tax-free to purchase whatever kinds of health insurance make them happy. If employers offer such plans, lovely. If not, individuals should be encouraged, through tax-free Health Savings Accounts, to buy their own policies and maintain them throughout their careers. This dramatically would reduce the tragedy of "job lock," whereby employees put up with bosses and duties they cannot stand, merely to keep employer-furnished health coverage.
Murdock isn't the only one promoting the value of Health Savings Accounts. Christian financial counselor Dave Ramseyis also a big proponent of them as well. Sure, HSAs won't solve all our health problems, but they could be part of the solution.
If Americans are more easily able to secure health care, outside the morass of government waste and bureaucracy, I'm all for that. And because our taxes wouldn't go up to fund the non-Christian ministry known as socialized health care, we'd be able to continue giving generously to Christian ministries such as our local churches, Compassion International, and Focus on the Family.
That's a problematic phrase: "A Right to Free Health Care."
First, the term "free health care" doesn't even make sense. Most Health care professionals need to earn a living, their facilities require money to operate, and their supplies can get expensive. Money comes from somewhere to cover the costs of staff and operations and medications. If that money doesn't come from you directly, it comes from you indirectly through your insurance policy or through your taxes. What's not covered by your personal taxes comes from taxes you pay on food or utilities or other stuff, or from taxes paid by your employer.
So there you go: There's no such thing as "free" health care. You don't get something for nothing unless, as my dad told me when I was a kid, someone somewhere some time gets nothing for something.
Second, there is no "right" granted either in our Constitution or in the laws of nature or nature's God to free health care. As Mike explained so well in the 119th comment on "I <3 Government Health Care":
The reason why health care is not a right is because it is a service, provided by human beings.
To assert the right to a service is to assert the right to force another human being to provide it to you. In other words, to force someone else to be your slave.
There can be no such thing as the right to enslave. Such a concept invalidates the very concept of rights in the first place. You can't assert the right to take away someone else's free will.
You have a right to life. You have a right to liberty. You have a right to pursue happiness. You have a right to self-defense. You don't have a right to demand that someone else take care of your health problems. Sorry.
Health care is good. To receive it is a blessing, and to give it reflects our Lord's loving character. But, sad to say, you don't have a right to it. And it sure don't come free.
The U.S. government runs most things really well, among them the U.S. Postal Service, the Veterans Administration, AMTRAK, the national education system, and Chrysler.
And so it's natural that We The People should invite these bureaucrats and politicians to take over management of our health care. This is the plan proposed by our House of Representatives (click on the image for a larger, more legible version):
The added expense and added bureaucracy and added restrictions are expected to be minor, and will only affect The Rich (including employers, entrepreneurs and businesses; excluding bureaucrats and politicians). Specifically, it will add a mere "31 new federal programs, agencies, commissions, and mandates." Thankfully, to my knowledge, the plan does not include tort reform.
As expected, nay-sayers are already polluting the waters, doing their best to scuttle this marvel of modern nanny-state governance. One such representative complained:
This chart depicts the health care nightmare that House [politicians] have planned for families and small businesses. This isn't reform; it's a recipe for disaster that will lead to higher health care costs, lower quality, rationed care, and bureaucrats making medical decisions instead of doctors and patients. Families shouldn't have to answer to shadowy Washington bureaucrats when they're seeking health care treatments for themselves and their loved ones.
If this isn't bad enough, this new maze of government bureaucracy will be funded by a new small business tax that will cost more American jobs. During a time of economic recession, the last thing Congress should be doing is punishing small businesses that create a majority of the jobs in this country.
Hm. Not sure what to make of this one. On one hand, it'd be awful nice for someone else to take my money and take care of me. An enigmatic collection of government agencies surely is able to care for me with more efficiency and love than I am.
On the other hand, I'm concerned that they might require so much tax money from me (either directly or through taxes and fees on my employer and businesses whose products and services I buy) that I wouldn't be able to keep my satellite TV.
Last Friday, President Obama met with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican and promised to "try to reduce abortions in [America]." I'm not buying it. Unless, of course, he means he's going to try to reduce abortions in America by making it much more accessible. And according to this article from The Weekly Standard, making abortion more accessible is something President Obama has a passion for.
In his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order overturning the Reagan-era Mexico City regulations, which had prohibited American foreign aid from going to organizations that finance overseas abortions. Just a few weeks later, the Gallup organization revealed that the executive order was the single most unpopular action taken by the president during his honeymoon period. At a time when American families had experienced an average 25 percent decline in their net worth, it would appear that increasing the net worth of foreign abortionists was not high on their to-do list.
The article goes on to highlight legislation before Congress that would make abortion a "health benefit" for every American. But given recent polls showing a more pro-life America, why would Obama seek the extreme? The Standard says it's because he's a true believer in abortion.
Why is Obama pushing ahead with such a radical abortion agenda? Since there's no way to accuse him of doing it out of poll-driven opportunism, sincere conviction becomes the most plausible motive. Sometimes the simplest, most straightforward answer makes the most sense. A president who once said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby if she made a mistake is deeply committed to making free and easy access to abortion an inescapable element of American culture.
One of the problems with making abortion more accessible is that it actually increases the number of abortions. Go figure. So when President Obama promised to try to reduce abortions, it's sort of like promising someone you're meeting you'll try to be on time knowing you probably won't.
Motte wrote about South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's adulterous ways last week.
Today's featured Boundless article by J. Budziszewski, "Disgracebook," now has Professor Theophilus and a student mulling over the distressing situation.
Among other things, Theophilus asks, "Why are you so sure that a man who can't keep his marital vows will keep his oath of office?" I've wondered the same thing: If a man is not faithful to his wedding oath, how can we expect him to be faithful to his oath of office?
Professor Theophilus goes on:
"... statesmanship requires more than skill, and that's just like skill in other fields too. We want our accountants to be skillful in accountancy, but we also want them to be honest. When I call a statesman 'great' I don't mean that he holds power with great skill, but that he rules with great justice."
Lots going on in J. Budziszewski's narrative. I'm interested to know what parts resonated with you.
In 1995, freshman Congressman Mark Sanford made a name for himself as a fiscal disciplinarian by sleeping in his office to save taxpayer money instead of setting up residence in Washington, D.C. His penny-pinching quirks included reports of having staffers use both sides of index cards and sharing sodas with colleagues.
Then there's Mark Sanford the undisciplined husband who had an affair with Argentine Maria Belen Chapur and sought out other sexual encounters with a "handful" of young women.
Of course the South Carolina Governor presents it differently to the press. He didn't "seek out" sexual encounters; they just sort of happened. According to this Associated Press article, they're referred to as "casual encounters" from trips with his buddies.
He said that during the encounters with other women he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail.
Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips to "blow off steam" with male friends.
The whole "let his guard down" thing is just an attempt to salvage anything left of his dignity, to imply that sexual affairs were never his intentions. It seems, however, he never had his guard up. Take for example the way his "love story" began with Chapur:
He said he saw her two other times, including their first meeting in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay.
"There was some kind of connection from the very beginning," he told The Associated Press, though he said neither that meeting nor a 2004 coffee date in New York during the Republican National Convention were romantic.
Hmm. Going to an open-air dance spot and arranging coffee dates aren't exactly what I'd consider hedge-building. The likely truth is that Governor Sanford enjoys being sexually aroused by young women and puts himself in position for such encounters. One such encounter led to an adulterous relationship that may ruin his career.
Mark Sanford the politician is known for his passion to protect taxpayer money. He went to extremes to act it out in his career, often sacrificing his own personal comfort. Mark Sanford the husband should have shown the same passion for protecting his marriage.
Politicians love to spend money. And they love to confiscate it from those around them. It's a lovely cycle, one they love to ratchet up each year as they grow dissatisfied with the status quo.
Now these politicians are in a lovely pickle: The folks they've been shaking down are running low on money to give. And yet the spending continues.
And so, naturally and obviously, the politicians are finding themselves in a financial crisis.
What to do? Cut spending? Limit the growth of spending? Increase taxes? Print more pieces of paper with numbers and dollar signs on them?
Nah, they're adopting a solution they learned in middle school: They're scribbling IOUs.
Yup, politicians in the state of California haven't been able to figure out how to make their expenditures equal to their income. And so instead of paying their financial obligations with real money, they're handing out $3.36 billion this month in pretend money.
Cute.
The chairman of the state Budget Conference Committee explains how they've come to find themselves with a $24 billion deficit: "'Live within our means' doesn't mean anything."
Maybe I should be encouraged by this attitude. Maybe this particular politician has been pursuing God's wisdom by immersing herself in Ecclesiastes.
Or maybe these politicians are just financially inept.
Much less.
On current events related to the economy and foreign affairs, young adults ages 18-29 averaged 20 percentage points lower than older adults on a simple 12-question quiz.
Here's the summary from Pew:
As in the past, younger Americans (ages 18 to 34) are not as knowledgeable about the news as are older Americans. On a current event knowledge survey, young adults averaged 5.9 correct answers out of 12 news-based questions, fewer than the averages for Americans ages 35 to 49 (7.8) and above age 50 (8.4). In fact, for each of the 12 items tested, a greater proportion of both age groups over age 35 knew the correct answer than adults under 35. The knowledge gap is widest on foreign affairs.
I know I'll get railed for this but I couldn't help notice that the 20 percentage point differential is pretty close to the gap (16 percent) in how young adults voted in the last presidential election versus the 30+ crowd. Hm.
I took the test and answered 12 out of 12 correctly. I don't say that to impress, but to show you how easy it was.
To test your current events knowledge, go here.
I love Memorial Day. I love remembering the soldiers who sacrificed everything, dying to protect the freedoms I too often take for granted. I think that's why I get choked up thinking about all the people who forgot why yesterday was a holiday. Living in a military town, it's a bit harder to forget. Though not impossible by any means. I suspect a lot of you did the typical Monday holiday thing yesterday. We cut our grass, grilled hot dogs, took a long nap, and imagined that it was summer. But we also stopped to read a tribute to two of the most famous American soldiers, Audie Murphy and Alvin York. In discussing these two decorated heroes, Peggy Noonan wrote, I thought of these two men the other night after I introduced at a
dinner a retired Air Force general named Chuck Boyd. He runs Business
Executives for National Security, a group whose members devote time and
treasure to helping the government work through various 21st-century
challenges. I mentioned that Chuck had been shot down over Vietnam on
his 105th mission in April 1966 and was a POW for 2,488 days. He's the
only former POW of the era to go on to become a four-star general.
When I said "2,488 days," a number of people in the audience went
"Oh!" I heard it up on the podium. They didn't know because he doesn't
talk about it, and when asked to, he treats it like nothing, a long
night at a bad inn. Warriors always do that. They all deserve the "Oh!" If you're among those who discount Memorial Day, I recommend Kevin DeYoung's post about all the reasons Christians should celebrate it. He did a great job. But I think he left out one very important reason: We live in a world prone to atrophy. And that's no less true in the realm of liberty. I'm always disheartened when I hear of churches who don't do anything to celebrate, or even acknowledge, our patriotic holidays. It's because we have the form of government we do, that such churches operate without fear of reprisal. And our military has done much to defend that freedom, not only for us, but for oppressed people's in far away lands. If you didn't do anything yesterday to remember fallen soldiers--those who have so selflessly fought to defend our liberties--take a minute today to read "Those Who Make Us Say 'Oh!'". And if you've never seen the old black and white film, Sergeant York, you should. York left his pacifist ways behind only after studying everything the Bible had to say about war and the power of the sword. If anyone should remember the exploits of brave and patriotic soldiers, it's those of us who, without their defense, have so much to lose.
![IStock_000001580608XSmall[1]](http://boundless.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c4ae69e201156fa7852f970c-200wi) My heart sank when President Obama announced new fuel economy standards for auto makers for models to be built between 2012-2016. And it wasn't because our government is forcing regulations on us to curb greenhouse gasses to "prevent' unproven man-caused global warming. It was because I have a family of eight.
Let me explain.
The new standards will force auto makers to build smaller cars. The auto makers complain that Americans do not want smaller cars and worry no one will buy them unless the government helps push gas prices above $4 a gallon. President Obama has said in the past that he wants to "help people make the adjustment" to $4 a gallon fuel prices.
$4 a gallon gas prices will mean my monthly fuel bill will go from $200 to $400 or more. That's $200 more a month that I can't put toward food, clothing, school supplies, health care, or housing. For a family of eight trying to live on one salary, it's substantial.
And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car? Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?
I wonder if by "help people make the adjustment" to higher fuel prices, what President Obama really means is forcing them to have smaller families.
Dr. Albert Mohler wrote a delineative article last week about Christians respecting other religions. It's something I struggle with, particularly regarding Islam.
There's a teacher in my church from Egypt who's a expert on Islam. He speaks with great passion about his love for Muslims and desire to see them come to know the Lord. He grieves about the events of 9/11, both the loss of innocent life and its effect on evangelizing the 10/40 window.
The stories he tells of Muslims loving Christians who work and live alongside them in Muslim countries are powerful. There's one testimony in particular that I'll always remember (though not in enough detail to recount here).
But even while he's providing me with a foundation of respect through the power of story, in the back of my mind, I can't help but also remember that large percentages (40-70 percent) of Muslims in Muslim countries agree with terrorism. And in the west, it's as high as one in five.
So how do I respect a religion whose followers want to kill me? Or the Muslims who support those that plot and plan to?
What's interesting about Dr. Mohler's article is that he never goes there. The fact that large percentages of Muslims may think it perfectly acceptable for someone to kill him seems perfectly beside the point. His sole focus is on their need for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As for respect, Dr. Mohler says we should respect Muslims, but not Islam.
Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive.
President Obama's speech at Notre Dame was as good as many expected it to be--especially as he brought his bridge-building rhetoric to another divisive issue. It's encouraging to hear someone who is pro-choice use the bully pulpit to say the following:
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.
It was these kinds of comments during the presidential campaign last fall that encouraged many pro-life Christians to give Obama a second look. During a stop in Colorado Springs, Donald Miller explained his hope for Obama's comments on abortion to make a bigger difference than the anemic efforts of Republicans:
I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party.
So, what will be the long-term effect of the Notre Dame speech? Can we expect to see the kind of progress that President Obama and Donald Miller spoke about? That really depends on how much President Obama chooses to align his bully pulpit and his policy shop.
I couldn't help but think how the President's encouraging words about reducing abortions were greatly offset by all the pro-abortion policies and appointments he has rushed into place. It's kind of like the government spending cuts the President announced that sounded impressive until you realized that they represented less than a fraction of a percent of the new spending he had already championed. So my question is, "Once you subtract the reduced abortions that the President's speech encouraged from the additional abortions that his policies will allow, will there be a net gain or a net loss?"
James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal describes himself as "decidedly in the middle" on the issue of abortion and as such said he was impressed as he listened to the President's speech. But after he thought more about the speech, he wonders if he was had. Here are his thoughts from yesterday's Best of the Web feature on Opinion Journal:
Many surveys suggest that a majority of Americans, while eschewing both extremes, favor greater restrictions on abortion than Roe now permits. Obama may "respect" those who hold such views, but he thinks that their views should continue to be excluded from the political process. His rhetoric of respect and reconciliation is welcome and reassuring. If only it were true.
We can keep praying that the President will keep up the conversation about reducing abortions as well as the other causes he mentioned that were friendly to the pro-life community, but that conversation needs to happen first and foremost in his policy shop.
So an extremely pro-abortion politician was reading some words yesterday during the commencement ceremony at Notre Dame.
Suddenly someone in the audience declared the obvious: "Abortion is murder."
The response from the audience: a cacophony of boos, followed by Notre Dame's popular football cheer "WE ARE ND." According to the official White House transcript, a few of those present also chanted the cute campaign slogan "yes, we can."
[Editor's note: I've edited the previous paragraph for accuracy, to emphasize that "yes, we can" was spoken by a minority of those attending the event. I've also removed the three paragraphs that had followed this one, which wrongly defamed Notre Dame for what a few in the audience said in response to the pro-life disrupter. Thank you to ND students Matthew, Alden and Michael for your gentle correction.]
I'm reminded of Stephen, who challenged the religious leaders of his day by declaring that they had "received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." Their response? They were "enraged" and "ground their teeth at him," and then finally "they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him" and killed him.
In the face of truth, the religious types angrily refused to listen.
I'm also reminded of Jesus Himself, who made a spectacle of Himself by indecorously shouting His God-informed opinions in, of all places, the Temple. But Jesus didn't stop with mere declarations; He also overturned tables and threatened people with the whip He had made. The concluding verse of that section of Scripture speaks of the zeal that consumed Jesus.
Certainly, the attendees of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony wanted some propriety. They didn't want a political speech interrupted with words from some uninvited pro-baby zealot. That's understandable, I suppose.
But it does leave me wondering when it is appropriate to disturb the peace with words of truth. When is it appropriate to say things that cause some in the crowd to cover their ears and rush at you? When is it appropriate to shout your words, even in sacred spaces?
Stephen did it. Jesus did it. There may be times when it's God's will that I follow the audacity of their example.
I found a great video series on the environment featuring author of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, Steven F. Hayward. Today was the fourth installment of a five part series from National Review's Uncommon Knowledge. They're only about six or seven minutes long so I'd recommend watching them all.
But if you don't have time, here are a few interesting nuggets I pulled out of the series:
- Environmental conditions improve as countries grow more prosperous
- The U.S. doesn't have a single city in the top 50 list of the world's worst for pollution
- Environmentalists bear much of the blame for our current greenhouse gas emissions for opposing nuclear power plants in the 70s
- Sea ice is shrinking but nobody knows what it means because measurements only go back 30 years
- In 20-30 years we'll look back on the global warming "crisis" and realize we way over estimated it's extent like we did with the population bomb scare
Hayward believes the public is growing more and more wary of environmentalists. He cites recent polling data showing it's decline as an issue and talks about how the green issues of magazines were the worst sellers of the year last April. Maybe that's why global warming alarmist like James Hansen and Al Gore are saying things like, "We have only 10 years left to do something about it!"
It reminds me of an old legal aphorism, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
And telling us we only have 10 years left before an environmental apocalypse is definitely what I would call table-pounding.
A new Pew study found that support for legalized abortion has dropped precipitously since last August, from 54% to 46%. Here's a portion of the summary from Pewresearch.org:
The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).
Interestingly, the Pew study was conducted (March 31-April 21), which was right in the middle of the Red Envelope Day campaign. I'm not saying there's a link. After all, we've seen public opinion on the question of whether abortion should be legal even up before. Still, it's interesting to consider.
What do you think? Could the Red Envelope Day campaign have had such an effect? Or has President Obama's pro-abortion actions in his first 100 days galvanized a nation to rethink her pro-abortion mindset?
Is it possible that the creator of Red Envelope Day Christ Otto was on to something when he said a revival is coming to America?
Justice Souter has announced he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court this summer. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 in part because his chief of staff, John Sununu, assured him that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatives. But he proved to be a foul ball on our nation's highest court, voting in 1992 to uphold Roe v. Wade and the ban on school prayer.
From AP on Souter's retirement:
Conservatives worried that in his praise for the liberal lion he succeeded, Justice William Brennan, Souter was charting a much more moderate course than they would have liked or expected from a Republican nominee.
Eighteen years later, Souter was firmly among the court's liberals....
Of the justices who occupied the high court's middle ground, Souter was the one most likely to challenge, in exchanges of written opinions, the aggressively conservative views of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Essentially though, the Democrats won the battle when they rejected Robert Bork in 1987. It's widely thought that the elder Bush acquiesced on Souter to prevent another confirmation battle in the Senate. And as expected, he was confirmed without controversy by a vote of 90-9.
All this makes me wonder if it's possible for President Obama to appoint a sheep in wolf's clothing, so to speak. Someone who appears moderate, maybe even gives lip-service for "choice," but moves to the right once they're on the court, particularly on the issue of abortion.
Probably not, I know. But still, one can hope ...
I don't know what to make of this breaking news story.
Apparently the White House wanted to stage a photo op of Air Force One flying in front of the Statue of Liberty. Other reports are that it was an advertisement for a movie; the "fog of war" is keeping us from knowing what really is going on. They told a few people about it, but most didn't know what was happening.
New Yorkers, still sensitive about 9/11, were terrified by the scene playing out before them. At one point the plane, and the two military jets that trailed it, came dangerously close to the Goldman Sachs Tower, the tallest building in New Jersey -- as close as a few dozen feet!
The financial district was in chaos, people pouring out of their office buildings in fear. Comments from people on the scene paint a picture of panic and fear and heartbreak:
David wrote, "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why would they do something like that, which will induce panic with the public. I work in the Exchange place area, and to us those planes were very very close. One flyby is bad, but four times in just plain crazy. 9/11 thoughts anyone? Whoever authorized this flyby needs to be severely reprimanded for this."
Jason wrote, "The plane was flying about 500 feet above the water, and was way too close to nearby buildings. Many of the buildings here in the financial district began to evacuate, and there was quite a lot of chaos for a 'planned event.'"
Mananyc wrote, "It caused so much panic. I think a prior notice to building services would've been the responsible thing to do. I got caught up in the frenzy, ran and fell and injured my elbow. Not to mention the countless people who were scared to death and panicked for no reason."
Sorbs wrote, "Lots of us took stairs over 40 floors - someone could have gotten hurt rushing down the stairs."
JR wrote, "Rattled nerves indeed, especially if you've been through 9/11. We unnecessarily evacuated the building which caused a lot of stress and disruption."
E wrote, "I work in 2 World Financial Center and my floor evacuated (along with what appeared to be the rest of the building) after seeing the planes zip by. Many of my coworkers remember evacuating on 9/11 and were terrified."
Andrew wrote, "I saw a pregnant women carried away and at least a few elderly people being helped. I was on the Pier in Jersey City and I swore it would hit the Goldman building."
Paul wrote, "In Jersey City, where I work (and saw the plane banking toward my building as it flew up the Hudson) people were TERRIFIED."
Mark wrote, "We evacuated our building. People were crying when we reached the ground floor."
Suzanne wrote, "I work on the 46th floor of a financial district building, and we self evacuated our building.... [H]ow could we not have received notice that on a Monday morning, a 747 would fly in a no-fly zone, apparently chased by two fighter jets? Who should be fired for this? We took the elevators from the 46th floor wondering if we would make it to the bottom."
Michael wrote, "Our building at 10 Exchange Place has been evacuated, as well as all tall surrounding office building in Jersey City. The announcements coming from the PA system were very scary as we were marching the stairs. In a panicking voice the announcer was telling us to move as quickly as possible."
CMW wrote, "When I called 911 to inquire, they refused to tell me what was going on.... I've never been so afraid."
Ken wrote, "I guarantee that this killed a few people. I myself almost had a heart attack and I am a healthy 30-year old. There were pregnant women running down 50+ flights of stairs, mass panic over here, etc."
Bailey wrote, "[W]e were very frightened! I evacuated my entire floor .... The plane seemed to be coming right at us. I had one employee with asthma trying to flee from the 36 floor -- she is now in the hospital."
I could go on, copy-pasting comments from various sites from those who were eye-witnesses, but I want to turn this over to you.
If you were there, tell us what you saw and felt. And even if you weren't there, what do you make of this surreal event?
When I was twentysomething, I had big ideas, still do. It's just that when I was fresh from college, a mere 21-year-old, it was hard to get anyone to take my big ideas very seriously. Not enough life experience, not enough maturity, not enough gray hair. (For better or worse, that last one is no longer an issue.)
It seems young people's big ideas matter a lot right now. At least when it comes to homosexuality. So says Dr. Al Mohler in his Thursday blog post "No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth."
If you're reading this blog, and you're young, your beliefs matter. Maybe more than you know.
No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
If you identify yourself as a believer, it's worth asking yourself where your convictions come from on this issue. What's driving your perspective? Where do you go first? Newspapers? Blogs? TV? Church? Even that last one may not be reliable anymore. Dr. Mohler writes,
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?
Given that young self-described Christians are prone to favor and even applaud homosexuality, how should the church respond? With courage and compassion writes Mohler.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight. ...
Even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.
And what is it the church should be saying?
The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.
We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.
Yes, your beliefs matter. But not just as a matter of public opinion or even cultural trends. They matter to God. And eventually, ultimately, we'll all have to stand before Him and give an account for each and every one of those beliefs.
Just in time for Earth Day, Pew Research released the results of a study examining views on global warming among religious groups. They're not surprising really, essentially breaking along the political leanings of the groups represented in the survey ... except for black Protestants.
Here's the breakdown from Pew:
The unaffiliated (58%) are the most likely among the religious groups studied to say there is solid evidence the earth is warming because of human activity. White evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming (31%), and the least likely to believe that humans have contributed to heating up the planet (34%). While only 39% of black Protestants say global warming is a result of human activity, they are, however, the least likely of the religions studied to deny global warming is occurring (15%).
What you don't see in this Pew summary is the full breakdown to the question, "Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?" which includes the option "Yes, because of natural patterns." And here, I believe the black Protestants have it right ... by a large margin. 36% believe the earth is warming due to "natural patterns," a full 16 percentage points higher than any other group.
This view seems to be the most consistent with the one presented in a recent Boundless article from Jay Richards titled "Question Global Warming." In it, Jay concedes that the earth is likely warming but that it's also likely that it's due to natural causes.
Today thousands of people in dozens of cities around the United States are gathering to protest the billions trillions that our elected representatives are confiscating from our yet-to-be-born children to spend on stuff.
The idea for these marches may have begun in early February when blogger Keli Carender organized a grass-roots protest in Seattle, and then brought into the national limelight when CNBC's Rick Santelli suggested that it was time for "Tea Parties" to protest "subsidizing bad behavior," something he associated with our current administration's mortgage entitlement expansion plans.
Though mostly driven at the grass-roots level via the Internet, a couple of larger groups have stood up to facilitate the marches: Tax Day Tea Party and National TEA Party Day. PajamasTV is providing ongoing coverage of today's events.
And you know, as long as these protests remain non-violent, I think they're fine. It's healthy to see normal Americans express themselves this way.
On the other hand, we have reports of groups destroying and defecating on promotional materials, and seeking to infiltrate the marches to disrupt and defame those who are marching. And we have the national media (e.g., MSNBC, CNN, and others) relishing in homoerotic vulgarity by referring to those marching as "Tea-Baggers" bent on "Tea-Bagging."
So there you go. Some people are protesting out-of-control spending. And others are belittling and threatening them. Good thing that one of those groups is under the loving and watchful eye of Big Brother our Department of Homeland Security.
I am a Christian who works for a conservative organization that opposes abortion. And according President Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this makes me a threat to the United States.
On April 7, a nine-page document under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States. The report mainly targets "groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)" and "military veterans," but includes those dedicated to a single issue like abortion. Like me.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ... or keep my eye out for black helicopters.
The best analysis I've read on the report is from Power Line Blog. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Of course, there are crazies of all stripes, and it's possible that a small group of "right wingers" could pose a terrorist threat. In principle, there is nothing wrong with assessing such threats from whatever direction they may come. Still, this report is an odd document. It is almost entirely unmoored to any empirical reality and appears to be heavily influenced by the political views of its (unidentified) authors. This is the central theme of the report:
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
The whole point of the report is that "right wing" extremism is undergoing a "resurgence" as leaders of extremist groups take advantage of the down economy and the Obama administration to recruit new members. Weirdly, however, the report makes no effort to document any such increased recruitment or extremist activity of any sort. As far as one can tell from the report, "right wing" militias and similar groups may be dying out rather than growing.
And,
Whoever wrote the report seems deeply hostile to conservatives' opposition to the agenda of the Obama administration. For example:
Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.
Millions of Americans -- not just "rightwing extremists" -- are concerned about the administration's positions on immigration and many other issues. Note that wherever possible, the authors slip race into the discussion, as with the reference to "expansion of social programs to minorities." I'm not aware of a single social program that the Obama administration has proposed to "expand to minorities." But the authors' assumption is, apparently, that anyone who opposes the expansion of social programs must be a racist. Once again we see the assertion that right wing extremists are "galvanized" and are "leveraging" these issues as "drivers for recruitment." But is recruitment up, down, or stable? The report doesn't say, and its authors evidently don't know.
The lack of specific information of actual threats by the DHS makes me think that the report was written to intimidate conservatives by labeling anyone to the right of Obama as a "right-wing extremist." And it's in stark contrast to a similar warning about left-wing extremism in 2001 which included detailed statistics and named actual groups.
So beware you bitter small town, religious, gun-owning, anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, war veteran; Big Brother is watching you.
"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." So says an aide to U.S. President Barack Obama.
Of course, the videos clearly show that President Obama in fact did bow -- deeply -- before the King of Saudi Arabia last week, offering him an embarrassing deference no President has ever given a foreign leader in our entire history as a nation.
A few days later the President explained, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." His bow may have been an awkward manifestation of that "respect," or it simply could have revealed his extraordinary ignorance of protocol.
In the words of a Washington Time editorial,
By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States. The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer.
To be frank, after the surreality of the past couple of months, I'm not surprised by our President's symbolic gesture of submission to the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques," protector of the two holiest cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina. Whether this submission is the result of intentionality or ignorance, I can't say.
Or maybe there's a less bewildering explanation: Perhaps President Obama thought there was a teleprompter mounted in the floor.
It's rare to see a conservative belief (let alone a Christian one) be allowed to win the day on a politically correct daytime talk show. But it happened last week on Oprah when Dr. Mehmet Oz shocked guest Michael J. Fox by proclaiming that the debate on embryonic stem cell research is dead. Both Winfrey and Fox, who suffer's from Parkinson's disease, seemed disquieted when Dr. Oz spoke of the problems with embryonic stem cells and promise of adult stem cells.
In January, an ordinary guy named Christ Otto had a vision of flooding the White House with empty red envelopes representing the millions of children who've died in abortions. So he emailed a few of his friends asking them to join him in the effort. Then, amazingly, his idea went viral on the Internet and led to an organized mailing event (I received two invitations on Facebook).
Another ordinary guy named Brian Potter ran with the idea and created redenvelopeday.com. Red Envelope Day was March 31st, the day when millions of red envelopes were to be mailed to the White House with this simple message written on the outside, "This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception."
The ultimate goal of this symbolic gesture is to change the president's heart on abortion. Otto writes, "This is a message to [the president] that God hears the cry of innocent blood." Time will tell if it has its desired effect on the president. But according to a report from World Net Daily, at least his vision of flooding the White House was realized.
The White House mail office has confirmed it received a "deluge" of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years.
White House mail worker "Steve" has handled letters for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than three decades. Every single package and letter destined for the White House goes through his office.
Asked if he has seen a flood of red envelopes bound for the White House, Steve chuckled.
"Uh, yes," he said emphatically. "Believe me, they made it here."
Steve said while Obama has been occupied in Europe, his administration has noticed millions of red envelopes on behalf of aborted children.
"Quite frankly, there was definitely a deluge of mail coming through," he laughed. "I had to handle them all."
"I've been here 35 years, so I've seen presidents come and go," Steve told WND. "This campaign ranks up there with the big ones."
Despite its success, Otto doesn't expect any media coverage. And other than this report from WND, I haven't seen any. One of my colleagues quipped that had it been a green envelope day to raise awareness about the environment, it probably would have been picked up by every major news outlet in America.
So what now? Otto believes a revival is coming to America. So he has established a "center of prayer in Boston." Given the overwhelming response to Red Envelope Day, maybe he's right.
During the campaign, Barack Obama won over a lot of pro-life Christians by saying that he wanted to reduce abortions. Our friend Gary Bauer writes today about how Obama is actually governing:
While President Obama likes to talk about “reducing the need for abortion,” his administration is taking steps to implement one of the most extreme proposals imaginable – repealing conscience protections for medical professionals. Make no mistake about the outcome of this action: religious hospitals, doctors and nurses will be forced to perform abortions or other procedures that violate their values.
Gary also shows how the polling-friendly term "pro-choice" doesn't apply to medical professionals in Obama's proposal:
This issue clearly exposes the pro-abortion extremism of Barack Obama and the Left. A woman’s “right of conscience” is protected to the extent that she can decide whether or not her unborn baby lives or dies. Now the pro-abortion Left wants to take away the right of conscience from doctors and nurses who want no part in the destruction of innocent human life. That is not “pro-choice” – it is pro-abortion.
I wrote a post a couple of years ago about a Gallup study highlighting the contrasting views of those who self-identify as liberals and conservatives, both socially and politically. Now The Barna Group has come out with a study comparing the religious beliefs and practices of the two groups. And according to the research, a conservative worldview is distinctly more influenced by biblical truths than a liberal worldview.
On religious beliefs:
Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
- that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% vs. 63%, respectively)
- their religious faith is very important in their life (54% vs. 82%)
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%)
- their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%)
- the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%)
- their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%)
- Jesus Christ did not commit sins during His time on earth (33% vs. 55%)
On religious practices:
In a typical week, the survey showed that conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
- read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
- attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
- pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
- share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
- have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)
Barna says, “Every person’s central choices in life are driven by their worldview, and everyone’s worldview is greatly influenced by their spiritual inclinations. The social and political preferences of people are closely tied to their spiritual beliefs and practices." Which seems to explain (to a degree) the great disparity in policy stances between conservatives and liberals on issues of moral ultimacy related to the institution of marriage and sanctity of life.
President Obama just wrapped up the first ever online town hall meeting in which he answered questions on topics ranging from the financial crisis to decriminalizing marijuana. It's part of the new administration's strategy to create "a broader avenue of information" to get his message out.
"In the new world of online media, formal press conferences are just one element or program to get the message out — to those, usually older, who watch such things on TV. The online version he is doing is an alternative way to get out the same message, in this case on the budget, targeted toward a different audience, usually younger," said Morley Winograd, a onetime adviser to former vice president Al Gore who now runs the Institute for Communication Technology Management at the University of Southern California....
In a way, it's part campaign-style politics and part American Idol, said political strategist Simon Rosenberg.
"Barack Obama is going to reinvent the presidency the way he reinvented electoral politics," said Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network and a veteran of presidential campaigns. "He is allowing everyday people to participate in a way that would've been impossible in the old media world."
But the president is also leveraging the "old media world" as well. He's just off hosting his second televised news conference -- more than any other president this early -- and has made recent appearances on Leno and 60 Minutes. (You would think we're 100 days out from the next presidential election instead of 60 days into his first year.)
So why all the media focus now?
Politics aside, this president simply plays well in America's living room because he's articulate, confident, and cool (except for the I-look-like-special-olympics-bowling gaffe). And America needs the assurance of the president during these uncertain financial times.
Politics considered, he gets the benefit of keeping his poll numbers up in the face of doubt about his economic "stimulus" plan and handling of the executive bonuses "scandal."
But it could prove a fleeting win win. Ultimately, it's his policies, not his media savvy, that will determine (proportionately) our financial course. And the direction of his poll numbers.
President Ronald Reagan was known to ask, "What are the nine most terrifying words in the English language?" followed by the reply, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Today, Americans are told that the Reagan era of government skepticism is over and that we can once again expect great help from the government. In fact, we hear that our current economic crisis has made people open to a much more active federal government -- with many recommending that America adopt the socialism of Europe.
In an article for The American magazine, however, Charles Murray argues compellingly that while there is much to like about Europe, their model for government "drains too much of the life from life." He writes:
If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: “Community” can embrace people who are scattered geographically. “Vocation” can include avocations or causes.
... Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that’s what’s wrong with the European model. It doesn’t do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.
 Murray goes on to explain that "almost anything that government does in social policy can be characterized as taking some of the trouble out of things." He writes:
Sometimes, taking the trouble out of things is a good idea. Having an effective police force takes some of the trouble out of walking home safely at night, and I’m glad it does.
The problem is this: Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality—it drains some of the life from them. It’s inevitable.
The example Murray gives from Sweden is stark:
Drive through rural Sweden, as I did a few years ago. In every town was a beautiful Lutheran church, freshly painted, on meticulously tended grounds, all subsidized by the Swedish government. And the churches are empty. Including on Sundays. Scandinavia and Western Europe pride themselves on their “child-friendly” policies, providing generous child allowances, free day-care centers, and long maternity leaves. Those same countries have fertility rates far below replacement and plunging marriage rates. Those same countries are ones in which jobs are most carefully protected by government regulation and mandated benefits are most lavish. And they, with only a few exceptions, are countries where work is most often seen as a necessary evil, least often seen as a vocation, and where the proportions of people who say they love their jobs are the lowest.
He adds:
I stand in awe of Europe’s past. Which makes Europe’s present all the more dispiriting. And should make its present something that concentrates our minds wonderfully, for every element of the Europe Syndrome is infiltrating American life as well.
Murray's article is helpful reading for anyone who cares about the future health of the institutions of family, community vocation and faith.
Thomas' blog got me thinking about what I missed on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade while I was in Ethiopia.
I missed President Obama's January 22nd statement with meaningless language about reducing abortions. Meaningless because the next day he signed an executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy barring tax-payer funds to international abortion providers ... followed by signing a spending bill that decreases federal money for abstinence programs and increases money to Planned Parenthood ... followed by his promise to reverse Bush's last minute conscience clause order ... followed by his HHS appointment of pro-late-term abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius ... followed by reversal of Bush's policy prohibiting tax payer funded stem cell research.
I missed this article from National Review Online highlighting the political successes in State legislatures (parental notification, informed consent, and waiting periods) which have reduced the number of abortions. So much for Christians claiming that policy doesn't matter when it comes to protecting life.
I missed this interview with RusselI Moore who's not holding his breath for the hope that younger generations will rise up in opposition to abortion.
Trevin Wax: Statistics show that younger generations tend to be more pro-life than their parents. You have stated that this commitment to pro-life principles is more theoretical than realistic because abortion rights is now deeply embedded in our cultural ethos. Are you saying that younger generations are less committed to the pro-life cause than they think?
Russell Moore: I do not take great comfort in opinion polls stating that younger generations are more pro-life than their parents. I believe that this is largely because the abortion issue is off the table in many ways politically.
Few people realistically expect that abortion will be made illegal. So pronouncing one to be pro-life these days is more akin to a person speculating what side of the Spanish Civil War he would take rather than a person articulating a deeply-held view on a matter of current import.
Which is exactly why so many "pro-life" Evangelicals can vote for a pro-abortion presidential candidate. Apparently all you have to do is give lip service about "reducing abortions" to satisfy their "less committed" consciences.
I missed all that.
It was only four months ago that America went to the polls to elect a new president, and it's been less than two months since our new leader took office, but it already appears that at least some of the evangelicals who supported a regime change in Washington are having second thoughts.
According to the Associated Press, several Christian leaders who supported his candidacy are not exactly enamored with the president's actions during his first weeks in office:
Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far on culture war issues.
Although most of President Barack Obama's moves on abortion and stem cell research have been expected, some right-leaning Christian leaders who took a risk sitting down at the table with a Democratic president feel that several major decisions fall short of the common ground Obama had promised on divisive social issues.
Obama's reversal this week of Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is the latest example.
"Thus far, I have been disappointed to see little give. There's been a lot of take," said the Rev. Frank Page, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who serves on a month-old advisory board to Obama's White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "I've seen little give in the area of relating to the evangelical community as far as life issues."
While the president has essentially kept true to his word in terms of making abortion more available and expanding taxpayer-funding for embryonic stem cell research, his supporters in the Christian community continue to temper their disappointment with a call for patience:
Obama "is not doing anything he hasn't said he was going to do during the campaign," said the Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical megachurch pastor from Orlando, Fla., and another advisory board member. "So I am not enthusiastic, but I'm not disappointed, because we knew what to expect. I'm encouraged he is not totally flipping to the other side. We've got to be patient here."
In other words, though the president wooed Christians during the campaign with the stated goal of reducing the abortion rate, his political actions thus far seemed designed to accomplish the opposite. If this trend continues, how long will his support among evangelicals last?
Just asking.
Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been all over the news lately. Apparently by design.
The Obama White House is painting Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican party in an obvious attempt to shame Republicans into distancing themselves from the right-wing "entertainer." (And if it proves a distraction from the Dow sinking 25% since Obama took office, even better.) What's not so obvious is why they've chosen to pick this fight right now. I mean, you would think they have more important issues to talk about in his first 100 days.
But Obama's a savvy politician. He's not only looking for a distraction, he's looking ahead to 2010.
About 16 years ago, when another flamboyant Democrat was in his first year, Rush Limbaugh was coming to prominence with his razor sharp criticisms and musical parodies. And leading up to the 1994 mid-term elections, Limbaugh is credited with fueling the Angry White Males (AMW) who overwhelmingly voted (62%) for a Republican house member.
So it seems Obama fears history will repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms lest he defang Limbaugh now.
The thing is, the 1994 mid-terms were more about President Clinton's overreaching agenda (remember "HillaryCare"?) and visionary Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA) than Rush Limbaugh. Meaning, Rush didn't create the AWMs, he simply gave them a voice -- a politically discerning and entertaining voice.
Will history repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms?
Making Rush the issue seems to be having its desired effect for now. Republicans are debating the issue, even dividing over it. But the only way it will work in 2010 is if there remains vacuum in Republican leadership like there was in 2008 (and 2006 for that matter).
As a children's magazine editor, I love a great kid story. And today I read one. According to WorldNetDaily:
Despite facing threats of disqualification, a 12-year-old girl took first place in a speech contest when she eloquently argued for the rights of unborn children – after an offended judge quit.
"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in a video recording of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?"
The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified only as "Lia," continued:
"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die.
"That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."
Though Lia's teacher strongly encouraged her student to choose a different topic or she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition, the 12-year-old persisted. "She forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about," Lia's mother says.
But Lia's speech was so good that her teacher allowed her to advance as the winner. She gave her speech in front of the entire school. The next day she was suddenly disqualified because of the content of her speech. However, the decision was reversed and Lia was declared the winner.
Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a regional speech competition, and more than 130,000 visitors have viewed her presentation online.
"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks in the video. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?
"We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?"
She continues, "No, fetuses are definitely humans – knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."
Out of the mouth of babes. Good job, Lia.
HT: Tim Challies
The Obama administration is funding a $5 million campaign holding up the value of marriage. An article in USA Today offers some details:
Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.
Some say the government has no business using tax dollars to promote marriage. But others say the campaign is just like those conducted by other federal agencies to encourage the use of seat belts and discourage drug use, smoking and drunken driving.
With ads on social networking sites Facebook and MySpace, videos on YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazines and public transportation and a new website (TwoOfUs.org), creators say the aim is to start a national conversation about marriage.
To determine how to shape the media campaign, The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, commissioned a research company called TRU to get insights on the 18-to-30 age group. In their online surveys, they found:
•14% express strong sentiments against marriage.
•22% aren't ready but say they eventually plan to wed.
•23% have a practical view of marital unions and often live together first.
•19% are enmeshed in the magic of love.
•22% have a strong belief in the institution of marriage.
Numerous quotes in the USA Today article and the comments after the article appear to come from that 14% who have strong sentiments against marriage as well as the 23% who often live together first. They say the government shouldn't spend tax dollars to encourage marriage. "This is 2009," writes one commenter, "and marriage is a bad idea. Why are so many people clinging to a provincial idea that simply doesn't make sense?"
The reality, however, is that many people who think marriage is a bad idea still end up having children at some point -- especially considering that half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Those children are statistically more likely to face financial and wellbeing disadvantages. Additionally, some of those children have needs that taxpayers end up absorbing. Those social costs dwarf the $5 million that has been given to this marriage campaign. What's wrong with the Obama administration spending a little money to encourage couples to commit to the kind of relationship that has proven to best for children?
It's not a budget bill. The last budget bill came to $3.1 trillion.
It's not a bailout bill. The last bailout bill came to $700 billion.
It's a so-called stimulus bill, a simple hemorrhage of money -- some $1.2 trillion, most of which would be spent during 2011 and beyond -- that bureaucrats pray will prime the pump of our economy.
No trickle-down effect here; rather a deluge of cash from our grandchildren's anticipated tax confiscations contributions, going for such critically urgent "absolutely necessary" things as:
- $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
- A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
- $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
- $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
- $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
- $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
- $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
- $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
- $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
- $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
- $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
- $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
- $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
- $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
- $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
- $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
- $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
- $500 million for state and local fire stations.
- $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
- $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
- $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
- $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
- $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
- $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
- $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
- $850 million for Amtrak.
- $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
- $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
- $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
- $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
You can browse the entire porkulus bill here.
The world's economies are hurting. People in China, Iceland, India, Brazil and elsewhere are experiencing financial difficulty. This tells me that there's nothing necessarily defective in the United States' mixed free enterprise system that's facilitated our economic difficulties. Consequently, the opposite system -- a stronger central government, making more decisions about how citizens' money is to be spent -- is not the answer to our nation's financial problems.
The U.S. was experiencing recession in the 1920s, an economic situation that ballooned into a Great Depression after the U.S. government offered a big government solution. FDR's secretary of the Treasury confessed that his costly stimulus plan was a failure: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."
President Obama said the other day that if this costly non-bipartisan bill is not passed, "Our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse." I suspect the opposite is true: that this bill -- likely the "largest single piece of legislation ever" -- may sink our nation into a financial crisis not unlike that of the Great Depression.
Regardless how this all plays out, may our hope be found in Christ, and enjoyed in authentic Christian community, and not in politicians of any stripe. May our treasure be found in an eternal kingdom, and not in this perishable one.
As if the billion dollars stimulus package isn't boondoggle enough, now it's proposing a strange cure to what ails our sluggish economy: more contraception. In defending the addition of birth control funding to the economic "stimulus" plan, a Democratic member of the House said on This Week with George Stephanopoulos,
Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
Yes, there's a lot of bad news about babies being born outside of marriage. And yes, those out-of-wedlock births do cause a strain on state budgets. But this proposed solution to that problem is straight from the Planned Parenthood playbook. And it's no solution at all.
In a 2005 column in The Washington Post, Economist Robert J. Samuelson explained why the opposite is true:
It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling. Europe as we know it is going out of business.... Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.
According to the Demographic Winter website,
By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. By 2040, there will be 400 million elderly Chinese.
If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.
Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the largest nation on Earth?
Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.
This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.
This "solution" to our economic "crisis" will have the opposite effect. But even that's not the worst of it. In striving to bolster our contraceptive culture, Congress would deny millions of women the very choice that has brought leaders like those supporting this bill the most joy. Ironically, the very politician whose quote appears above once proclaimed, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom."
We've seen this before. Hostility toward babies born in less than ideal circumstances. It's the mindset of Pharaoh. The mindset of Herod. And to what end? If this plan succeeds, who won't be born? Babies like this one.
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments