Bruce Eberle's Blog

Freedom Solution to Medical Care Issue

2010-03-09T22:30:00Z

Freedom Solution to Medical Care Issue

Let’s begin by being honest. There is no health care crisis in America. It’s just another made up “crisis” to advance the liberal agenda. The current proposal by the government would be a disaster for individual freedom and would lower the quality of medical care for everyone, while increasing the cost and increasing the waiting time for care. There is nothing for anyone to like about Obamacare unless you are a politician or a bureaucrat that thinks he knows what’s better for you than you do.

But there are important things that could be done to make medical care better and cheaper. This is a new look at things.

        1. Tort Reform. Specifically let’s end punitive damages across the board.
            The US is the only industrialized nation in the world with punitive
            damages and that’s the only reason you and I pay more for car
            insurance, and for other goods and services. Tort reform is the starting
            point for lowering the cost of medical care and that’s what Americans
            care about. They love their medical care, they just don’t love the rising
            cost of medical care.

        2. Individual Portability. Individuals, whether they work for a company or
            not, should own their own insurance and be able to benefit from it
            wherever they work. Competition will provide the best possible quality
            of insurance for everyone.

        3. Deductibility. This is the most important and powerful reform that is
            needed. I am not suggesting that each person should be able to deduct
            the entire amount they spend on medical and prescription from their
            taxable income. Rather I’m suggesting that they be able to deduct
            100% of the amount they spend on medical care and prescription drugs
            from their taxes! Consider the many positive benefits this would have,
            including putting more power and more freedom in the hands of the
            individual.

                    A. Each individual could choose what level of deducibility would be
                        best for him or her. In a high percent of the cases, the only
                        insurance coverage a person would need would be for
                        catastrophic events and such insurance would cost just a
                        fraction of what that person is paying for medical insurance
                        today. The only losers would be the insurance companies.

                    B. Reduced Bureaucratic Cost. Under this plan you would pay cash
                        (check, credit card, etc.) when you visit the doctor, up to the
                        highest deductible amount. This simplifies things greatly for
                        your doctor and dramatically reduces his costs. Your doctor
                        would no longer need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on
                        malpractice insurance (tort reform) or additional tens of
                        thousands of dollars for staff to fill out forms and wrestle with
                        the insurance companies. The result? The size of your doctor
                        bills would decrease significantly. In addition, such reforms
                        would actually encourage young men and women to enter the
                        medical profession, instead of Obamacare which would create
                        a shortage of medical professionals, especially nurses and
                        doctors.

                    C. Medicare Option. Individuals on Medicare should be given the
                        option of simply deducting their medical costs and the cost of
                        their prescription drugs from their income instead of receiving
                        Medicare and prescription drug benefits. This would ensure that
                        seniors who opt out would no longer have trouble getting
                        medical care and that they would be welcome as patients who
                        pay the full cost of their medical care. Moreover, the quality of
                        medical care would also increase. The taxpayers would benefit
                        greatly as millions of seniors drop out of Medicare and the
                        federal drug prescription program to gain direct deductibility
                        from their taxes. This would be a big step toward saving
                        Medicare that is currently bankrupt. It would also dramatically
                        reduce the cost of the drug prescription program.

        4. Medical Care for Those Who Cannot Pay for It. The freedom solution to
            this problem is to allow taxpayers to make contributions to qualified
            nonprofit foundations that provide care for those who need it. The
            deductibility (from taxable income) would be higher than a dollar per
            dollar donated. In other words, your gift of $1,000 might allow you to
            actually deduct $1,500 from your taxable income. The deductible
            amount could be adjusted annually up and down to ensure that there
            are sufficient funds available in qualified nonprofits to care for those
            who cannot pay themselves. Such coverage should be limited to those
            who for no reason of their own simply do not have the funds to pay
            their medical bills and for their prescription drugs.

The proposal I have outlined above would not expand government or its control
over your life or mine. It would increase the quality and quantity of medical
care and it would shrink the cost of medical care dramatically. This is the kind
of proposal the Republicans should advance to improve what is already the
greatest medical care system in the world.

John Finn, RIP

2010-03-02T19:39:00Z

John Finn, RIP

I recently lost a long time friend, John Finn, to cancer. John was above all things, a Christian gentleman. I was blessed to have John as a friend.

The first time I heard of John Finn was when I was active in Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) in about 1965. John, a proud Texas native, was living in the San Diego area and his business card listed him as some sort of regional director of YAF. I believe it was at that time that John was working with Ted Loeffler on a special test project to move college students to the right by sending them a series of conservative books. Throughout John’s life he was always open to new ideas. Even when he reached his seventies, John was ahead of the technology and idea curve.

I probably first met John when he and his wife, Sherry, were living in the Los Angeles area. John had started a company, INFOMAT, to market direct mail lists and to raise money for great causes. Located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, INFOMAT was always on the leading edge of using technology to raise funds for the conservative movement. Of course, John gave me his card listing him as the President of INFOMAT.

But my very favorite card of John’s said simply, “John Finn, Entrepreneur” with his address and telephone number, of course. And indeed John Finn was truly an American entrepreneur. John’s fertile and creative mind led him “Edison like” to explore and dabble in a myriad of entrepreneurial ventures. I’m sure I don’t know them all, but just a few of what I remember include brokering radio stations, construction of small hydro electric plants, selling gold mines, and my absolute favorite, selling a ship of cow manure to India! Perhaps it was just fertilizer, but I remember it as cow manure.

When I would visit with John on my trips to see clients in California, he always came to the meetings with 40 questions or ideas. It was never 39 or 41, always 40. These were challenging questions and cutting edge ideas. Yes, some were “out there” but all were thought provoking.

John always had his ear to the “railroad tracks” looking out to get on board the next great idea. He also knew what was happening down the street from me in Virginia before I had any inkling what was going on. Everyone I ever met who knew John Finn liked him. He always had a smile on his face and words of encouragement.

He was not, in spite of his great inquisitive mind and tireless energy, a businessman or entrepreneur first. His family came well before his personal ventures and his faith in God before that. And there was always time for working on behalf of the causes he believed in. He and his entire family strongly believed in the right of an unborn child to live and they were not hesitant to give their time and their treasure in support of that noble cause. But no matter how strongly John believed in a cause, he always supported it with that special smile on his face.

I miss that smile. And I look forward to enjoying it again when we meet in heaven.

Crisis or Crying Wolf?

2010-02-23T15:46:00Z

Crisis or Crying Wolf?

Apparently, according to the mainstream media and scheming politicians, we live in an age where all challenges are a crisis, not just a problem. Americans are living longer than ever before, but we have an obesity crisis, especially a child obesity crisis. Americans are understandably concerned about the rising cost of medical care (due primarily to a lack of tort reform and a lack of individual tax deductibility), but voila, it is now a health care crisis that requires government to take over our health care system!

The list of these man-contrived crises goes on and on—climate change, teenage smoking, handgun violence, teenage drinking, drunken driving, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans’ suicides, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans’ violence… And that’s just touched the tip of the iceberg. Some of these are real problems that need to be addressed and others are imaginary crises created by cynical politicians who see an opportunity to gain more power over American citizens.

So what’s new? Sinful man has always sought to gain power over others. As Machiavelli correctly observed, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or, as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “When those in power realize that they can perpetuate themselves in power through taxing, spending, and electing, democracy is dead.”

Phony crises cause us to take our eyes off the ball. Real crises are ignored because these same politicians either wish to stick their head in the sand or because they wish to believe the crisis doesn’t really exist.

Terrorism attacks on the United States become, in the words of US Secretary for Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, “man created catastrophes.” Sky high spending causing a tripling of the national debt makes it “necessary” to “stimulate” the economy, even though the primary purpose of the bill is to provide “pork” for Congressmen and Senators to get themselves re-elected. Alexis de Tocqueville would be shaking his head sadly.

Shrinking freedom caused by government expansion and justice denied by misguided judges that ignore the Constitution threaten the foundations of our nation. A total breakdown in morality boldly exhibited on our televisions and a collapse of civility signal a true crisis in our land. A crisis that continues to be ignored and obfuscated as the latest phony crisis is rolled out to turn our heads elsewhere.

America, it’s time for a reality check. Fat Americans, high health care costs, teenage smoking, climate change, and drunken driving may be problems, but they are not threatening the survival of our nation. What America needs is not more pontificating politicians, or more nattering news analysts. What is needed is spiritual renewal. Nothing short of spiritual renewal will restore the morality and civility and clear thinking that is absolutely vital to getting the United States of America back on track. Nothing else will return our land to the rule of law and restore the foundations of our republic. It’s time to put first things first.

Military Conscription

2010-02-16T22:07:00Z

Untitled Document

Military Conscription

My American Heritage College Dictionary defines conscription as “Compulsory enrollment, especially for the armed forces; draft.” Lest there be any doubt about this definition, my dictionary goes on to define compulsory as “1. Obligatory; required. 2. Employing or exerting compulsion; coercive.”

I’m writing about this because there is a new book out written by Beth Bailey, America’s Army, which relates the history of the voluntary military in the United States. From what I have heard (although I have not yet read it), it is excellent.

Over the years a number of conservatives have argued on behalf of conscription, forcing young American males who would not otherwise volunteer to serve in the U.S. Military. The primary argument is that it would be good for them.

Is that really a legitimate argument that is consistent with conservative values and principles? Liberals argue that Americans should be forced to purchase health insurance. Health enthusiasts have argued that Americans should be forced to take Vitamin D and be denied access to “bad” foods.

I might argue that everyone should go to church on Sunday, but even if I’m right, do I have the right to force someone else to do something they don’t want to do? Forcing someone to do what they choose not to do is coercion. Any time an adult U.S. citizen has been forced to do something they do not want to do because it is good for them, it is wrong. That’s not freedom. That’s the raw exercise of government power to limit another person’s freedom and to control their lives. I should not have that right. You should not have that right. The government should not have that right.

Conservatives should understand that the U.S. government has the right and responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to do only two things—maintain internal order through law enforcement and the courts, and to protect its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.

Just what gives me or any other citizen the right to force another law-abiding citizen to do anything that I think is good for him or her? Who made me god? Men and women are mere mortals, flawed, and inclined toward seeking power over others. That’s what the founders understood so very clearly. That’s why Madison and Jefferson and the founders intentionally created a system of checks and balances—to limit the power of individuals over other individuals.

One could make the argument that perhaps, just perhaps, conscription is a necessary evil when our nation is threatened with destruction by foreign enemies. But no one who believes in freedom and the U.S. Constitution should promote or advocate military conscription because they think it would be good for those who are conscripted.

Ronald Reagan understood this and that is why, with the able assistance of Martin Anderson (who successfully encouraged President Nixon to end the draft), Reagan worked hard to make the voluntary military a success. Under Reagan the American voluntary military became the best fighting force in the world. Efficiency and morale soared.

Short of a gigantic, all-out war, there is simply no constitutional or individual freedom based argument that can be made by a conservative to advocate conscription. It is a slippery slope that can justify conscription of young men and women to do all sorts of things in our society just because government forces them to do so. Our citizens deserve better. Freedom is always tenuous. As Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

Let us thank, salute, and honor those who willingly choose to serve in our Armed Forces. We owe them full support and our gratitude for putting their lives on the line so that we might live in freedom. They are America’s best and they deserve the best from us.

Civil Discourse

2010-02-09T20:31:32Z

Civil Discourse

It’s not often that I praise an article in The Washington Post, unless it’s a column by Charles Krauthammer in the Outlook section. The odds become even less when it’s an article co-authored by Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman. Ms. Kissling is the former president of Catholics for Choice and Ms. Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. But that’s exactly what I am going to do. No, I do not agree with the abortion stance of either Ms. Kissling or Ms. Michelman. I am as strongly pro-life as these two ladies are abortion supporters.

But one thing has distressed me increasingly over the nation. It seems to me the great decline in public civility reached a zenith in the Clinton years when those who opposed the policies put forward by the Clintons were targeted as enemies, rather than opponents. Politics became more like war, than a sporting contest. The politics of personal destruction became accepted practice. No longer did politicians try to persuade, they endeavored to win at any cost, even if that cost meant the destruction of an opponent. The Clintons were especially good at tarring any opponent with the worst possible descriptions, even when they knew there was no truth to such accusations.

That’s why I found the article by Kissling and Michelman titled, “How to be Pro-Choice on Super Bowl Sunday,” a breath of fresh air. Essentially, they argue for toning down the abortion debate and moving toward an effort to try and persuade the public rather then demonizing those who disagree with them.

The article was prompted by the $2.5 million 30 second ad that was run during the Super Bowl featuring recently graduated University of Florida quarterback, Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam Tebow. The article describes Tim Tebow as a “humble young man who takes his faith seriously,” and describes the ad as “…the story of her [Pam Tebow] decision 23 years ago to ignore medical advice and continue a risky pregnancy.”

Here’s the advice that Kissling and Michelman give to their side of the argument: “For abortion rights supporters, picking on Tim Tebow and his mom is not the right way to go. Instead of trying to block or criticize the Focus on the Family ad, the pro-choice movement needs its own Super Bowl strategy. People want to be inspired, and abortion is as tough and courageous a decision as is the decision to continue a pregnancy.”

While I don’t agree with their sentiments, I did appreciate that they were suggesting that the argument over abortion be taken to a higher ground.

Kissling and Michelman give this advice to those who favor unrestricted abortion, “Women’s and choice groups responding to the Tebow ad should take a page from the Focus on the Family playbook. Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women’s new vice president, called the Tebow spot “hate masquerading as love.” That kind of comment may play well in the choice choir, but to others, it makes no sense, at best; at worst, it’s seen as the kind of stridency that reinforces the view that pro-choice simply means pro-abortion.”

This is the kind of advice that both sides of all public issue debates should be giving to their followers. Why? Because it raises the debate to a plane where both sides make their case based on facts and use their best efforts to persuade the American people they offer the right answer to the issue at hand.

As long as one or both sides remain mired in the muck of personal attacks, it will be difficult for the American people to make a rational choice. When one side of the argument breaks down and people are called “baby killers” or “racists” or “haters” or “cowards” or “bigots” or “war mongers,” it will be difficult for those who are undecided on the issues to make a decision.

I’m personally confident that freedom and morality are the best choices for America. I’m confident that the American people want to take care of themselves and that they want less, not more, government in their lives. I don’t have to and should not attack a liberal as a bad person, but simply as someone who is wrong. Similarly, just because I believe in smaller government and favor freedom-oriented solutions like school vouchers to strengthen the quality of American education, it should not cause me to be attacked as a racist or someone who has no compassion for the poor.

I salute Frances Kissling, Kate Michelman and the leaders of Focus on the Family for their efforts to lift the debate over abortion to a higher plane.

To read the entire article, “How to be Pro-Choice on Super Bowl Sunday,” click this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902505.html

A Great Week for Freedom!

2010-02-04T20:45:00Z

A Great Week for Freedom!

January 17-23, 2010 was a great week for freedom and a great week for America! On Tuesday, a heretofore little known state senator, Scott Brown, was elected to the United States Senate in what must be recorded as one of the greatest political upsets in the history of the U.S.

Brown defeated the incumbent Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, 52% to 47% in a special election to fill the remaining three years of the U.S. Senate term vacated by the death of Democratic icon, Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy. Massachusetts can easily be called the most Democratic state in the nation, going to President Obama in 2008 by 26 points. Brown’s election wasn’t just a victory, this was another Massachusetts “shot heard ’round the world.”

Like throwing a tire iron into powerful gears, the victory brought the nationalized medicine agenda (and much of their other agenda) to a screeching halt. Freedom was the victor, socialism was the loser.

This unbelievable triumph was quickly followed on Thursday by yet another victory for freedom. In a case brought by Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for barring the distribution of their movie, “Hillary,” during the election season, freedom of speech and freedom of the press prevailed over those who want to limit speech to only what they believe is acceptable.

Contrary to the depiction by much of the news media, this wasn’t a victory for big corporations or the rich or the unions. It signaled an end to letting only a few for-profit corporations, those that own TV and radio stations, as well as newspapers and news magazines, promote, endorse, and push candidates of their choosing. Now, all corporations are on an equal footing when it comes to advancing candidates of their choosing. For far too long have CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post and their fellow travelers promoted only candidates they liked, and smeared those they disliked. The public was ill served.

Hopefully, with this new burst of fresh air, the table will be more fairly balanced and those in the news media will be more circumspect in using their news pages to slant the news in favor of a particular candidate. But perhaps that’s too much to hope.

But what a great week it was!

The Haiti Crisis

2010-01-28T17:13:00Z

The Haiti Crisis

If you’re like me, you want to contribute to help those in need in Haiti. The Haitian earthquake created a disaster almost beyond words. It’s so vast and the situation is so desperate, it’s hard to understand what to do or who to contribute to.

I’m going to make a suggestion. I’m in the fundraising business, but I don’t have any relief clients who are working in Haiti. I don’t have an axe to grind and I certainly don’t have a conflict of interest. I believe I do, however, know some good guidelines for choosing which nonprofit to give your gift to.

In my opinion the best groups to give to are the small charities that have a minimum of overhead and have a very defined program to assist Haitians in their recovery efforts. And if they already have a track record of working in Haiti, that’s even better. There are a number of groups that meet the preceding criteria.

I have learned over the years that very large charities operate like very large corporations. They have a vast bureaucracy and one of their primary goals is to protect their turf. Whether their mission has to do with natural disasters or health or general welfare, protecting their turf too often takes precedence over their stated objectives. Some even maintain a large number of in-house lawyers to not only lobby Congress for earmarks and grants, but also take measures to make it difficult for new groups to enter the marketplace. Like giant corporations, giant charities often use government to squeeze out competition so that they can have a monopoly on raising funds for their cause.

That’s why my wife, Kathi, and I have sent a donation to a small but effective group that was already working in Haiti before the earthquake occurred. The group is Agape Flights (www.agapeflights.com) located in Venice, Florida. Agape is now in an emergency mode. They have the right contacts and know what needs to be done. They have solved the dilemma of getting supplies to those in need by utilizing a ship to provide urgently needed supplies and by using helicopters to reach into remote areas.

Our good friend, Don Kerndt, who, together with his wife, Sue, used to live in our neighborhood, works at Agape as their Chief Financial Officer on a completely pro bono basis. I personally toured Agape the last time we visited Don and Sue and I can tell you it is a very focused and very efficiently run organization.

If you decide to contribute through Agape [a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt foundation] you can designate your gift directly for the Haitian Earthquake relief and you can be confident that your dollars will be spent wisely and effectively.

But most important of all, please keep the people of Haiti and all the relief workers in your prayers. Through prayer, mountains can be moved. And that’s exactly what needs to happen in Haiti.

What’s So Amazing About Grace?

2010-01-20T17:29:00Z

What’s So Amazing About Grace?

Upon the advice of a friend, I read Philip Yancey’s book, What’s So Amazing About Grace? (Zondervan 1997). Yes, I realize the book has been out for quite some time, but I’m a little behind on my reading.

As the dustcover blurb says, this is a “provocative book.” I knew before I opened it that I would not agree with everything within the covers of this book because my friend said something to the effect, “This is one of the best books I have ever read, but I don’t agree with all of Yancey’s conclusions.” And then, before reading the book, I read this “endorsement” in the front of the book by my favorite Christian writer, Chuck Colson, “Philip Yancey is one of the most engaging and convicting writers in the Christian world. Once again he has produced a work with something in it to make everyone mad.” Yikes. I had to ask myself, paraphrasing the book title, “What’s so irritating about Philip Yancey?”

Before I quickly cover the irritating things I found in this book, let me say that in spite of my differences with Yancey, this is a powerful book that gave me a deeper understanding of grace. It was fully worth the read. And hopefully I will continue to understand grace more deeply thanks to this book.

Really, my complaints about Yancey are limited. The Bible was written primarily to explain God’s relationship to man and man’s relationship to God. Man’s relationship to government is covered in Romans 13 where Paul says that believers should obey the government and pay taxes because government was established by God. Paul goes on to say that God gave the power of the sword to punish evildoers. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke relate the story of the Pharisees who tried to trick Jesus by asking Him if it was right to pay taxes to Rome. Jesus responded by asking for a coin then asking them whose image was on the coin. They replied, “The emperor’s.” Upon hearing their response, Jesus stated, “Very well, give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and give God what belongs to God.”

What does all this have to do with Philip Yancey and his book, What’s So Amazing About Grace? Just this, after providing insight into the power of God’s grace in our lives and its ability to soften even the hardest heart, Yancey makes the quantum jump to assert that it was the power of grace that brought down the Soviet empire. Yes, by the Grace of God, prayers were answered and the Soviet Union collapsed. It didn’t happen because the Soviet bosses softened their hearts. But according to this passage on page 262, that’s apparently what Yancey thinks, “In Poland the Catholics marched past government buildings shouting, ‘We forgive you!’ In East Germany, Christians lit candles, prayed, and marched in the streets until one night the Berlin Wall collapsed like a rotten dam.” Really? So it wasn’t an evil empire like Ronald Reagan said? It didn’t fall because of the pressure exerted on it by the Pope, by Margaret Thatcher and by Ronald Reagan? Grace is about people.

Yancey also uses his book as a forum to write about a thinly disguised complaint that the article he wrote in Christianity Today about the Clintons was really true. The gist of the story is that he met with Bill and Hillary Clinton and found them to be committed Christians. Perhaps, because no one can look into the hearts of another person, but more likely, Yancey was “rolled” as he was accused of at the time. Yancey says in his book, “… I found it almost impossible to understand the Clintons apart from their religious faith.”

Yancey also relates a story of a 1991 meeting, along with other Christians, in the infamous Lubyanka prison with General Nikolai Stolyarov, Vice Chairman of the KGB. The General apparently wept and repented. Yancey and others in his group bought it, but the Russian photographer who had accompanied them later told them, “It was all an act.” Yancey demurred.

And yet, this is a powerful, important book that is well worth reading because the naiveté of Yancey on the world scene doesn’t diminish his understanding of the power of God’s grace in individuals’ lives.

Yancey is a great story teller and his ability to relate incredible stories of grace changing hardened hearts is both compelling and powerful.

Yancey clearly understands God’s greatest grace, “… grace does not depend on what we have done for God but rather what God has done for us.” Jesus “… was the shepherd who left the safety of the fold for the dark and dangerous night outside. To His banquets He welcomed tax collectors and reprobates and whores. He came for the sick and not the well, for the unrighteous and not the righteous.”

About Jesus’ parable of the workers who were paid equal amounts even though some worked just an hour compared to others who worked 12 hours, Yancey sums it up correctly, “God dispenses gifts, not wages.”

He talks about “… a humble awareness that God has already forgiven us a debt so mountainous that beside it any person’s wrongs against us shrink to the size of anthills. How can we not forgive each other in light of all God has forgiven us?”

Yancey quotes C.S. Lewis, “To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.” Yancey summarizes again, “… grace means there is nothing I can do to make God love me more, and nothing I can do to make God love me less.”

And Yancey includes this quote by Charles Williams in regard to the Lord’s Prayer, “No word in English carries a greater possibility of terror than the little word ‘as’ in that clause.” Yancey observes, “What makes the ‘as’ so terrifying? The fact that Jesus plainly links our forgiven-ness by the Father with our forgiving-ness of fellow human beings. Jesus’ next remark could not be more explicit: “If you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

I think you are probably beginning to see why, in spite of my differences with Yancey, I liked this book so much. Quickly, here are a few more succinct blurbs from Yancey:

The gospel of grace begins and ends with forgiveness. People write songs with titles like “Amazing Grace” for one reason: Grace is the only force in the universe powerful enough to break the chains that enslave generations. Grace alone melts ungrace.
… forgiveness is an act of faith.
A cease-fire between human beings depends upon a cease-fire with God.
Forgiveness offers a way out. It does not settle all questions of blame and fairness—often it pointedly evades those questions—but it does allow a relationship to start over.
You can know the law by heart without knowing the heart of it.
… the proof of spiritual maturity is not how “pure” you are but rather the awareness of your impurity.
Repentance, not proper behavior or even holiness, is the doorway to grace.
The solution to sin is not to impose an ever-stricter code of behavior. It is to know God.
Moralism apart from grace solves little.
Our founders thought religious faith essential for a democracy to work: In John Adams’ words, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
It was Christianity, and only Christianity, that brought an end to slavery…
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said: …“Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”
The Christian knows to serve the weak not because they deserve it but because God extended His love to us when we deserved the opposite.
The desire to “be as gods,” after all, led Adam and Eve to rebel.
I escape the force of spiritual “gravity” when I begin to see myself as a sinner who cannot please God by any method of self-improvement or self-enlargement.

Yes, please read this book. Yancey does indeed see the problems of this world in the light of God’s grace. He quotes Lesslie Newbigin, “The project of bringing heaven down to earth always results in bringing hell up from below.” How true. The imperfection of man is cured only by repentance granted, without merit, by God’s grace.

Lexus Ad Campaign

2010-01-13T22:31:00Z

Untitled Document

Lexus Ad Campaign

I have to smile when I see the latest television ad campaign for Lexus. For me it’s proof that even real smart folks can come up with some really silly ideas. Even more than that, there were marketing people at Lexus who not only liked the ad campaign, but succeeded in selling it to management. It just shows that even big companies make really dumb choices.

In case you’ve missed the ad I’m talking about, it’s the one heralding the great engineering achievements of Lexus and how they are evidence of their many important contributions to the evolution of the automobile. What are these great advances that have revolutionized the automobile?

It’s hard to repeat them without laughing out loud. It’s the car that nearly parks itself. It’s the car that detects someone walking nearby that might be in danger. It’s the 8, or is it 9, speed automatic transmission. The ad says that Lexus has contributed 12 great innovations to the development of the automobile. I have yet to see what the other great innovations are, and I don’t anticipate seeing them as I suspect they are even more ludicrous than the three they are currently touting.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it was difficult and time consuming to develop a car that can nearly park itself, a car that can detect humans potentially in danger and a 9 speed automatic transmission, but come on! These technically complicated accomplishments are hardly earth shaking.

The car that nearly parks itself costs more than $100,000. It’s hardly something that the everyday car buyer can afford. It belongs more in the category of a Rube Goldberg invention than a landmark automotive innovation.

Lexus clearly makes a great automobile. My wife drives one, and although I believe the electronic technology is over intuitive, it is a fine automobile.

However, if Lexus doesn’t want me to laugh out loud at its so called landmark contributions to the automobile industry, it needs to tout real innovations such as the creation of the V8 engine, the automatic transmission, four wheel hydraulic brakes, mass production, seat belts, etc. Henry Ford’s V8 engine was truly revolutionary, especially in light of the fact that he did not have a computer to help him determine the correct firing order to limit vibration. The introduction of four wheel hydraulic brakes was a dramatic improvement in safety and allowed the average driver to drive at much higher speeds with greater security and safety for his family. The automatic transmission was revolutionary and made driving a car much, much easier. Ford’s development of mass production changed the automobile from being excessively costly into being available to the average American. Seat belts, courtesy of NASCAR racing, saved millions of lives. All of the above were truly revolutionary advances in the automobile industry.

Lexus has taken hyperbole to a new level in its current advertising campaign. It’s ridiculous and silly at the same time.

A Bribe is a Bribe is a Bribe

2010-01-07T21:54:00Z

A Bribe is a Bribe is a Bribe

Or, to paraphrase an old saying, “A bribe by any other name would be just as corrupt.” What in the world is Congress up to? Obamacare is not medical reform, it is a clearly unconstitutional takeover of one-sixth of our nation’s economy for the sole purpose of securing a permanent Democratic majority in Washington. It’s not about health care. It’s a simple power grab to create another vast dependency group which can be threatened and cajoled to vote Democrat in order to protect their government hand out.

It doesn’t matter to Reid, Pelosi or Obama that it also means (when they eventually get their one-payer socialist medical system)…

Waiting for months to get health care;
Having medical decisions made by government bureaucrats instead of the patient and the doctor;
A government created shortage of doctors, nurses and hospital beds;
An end to medical advances in medicine;
Higher taxes, worse care and less freedom.

And how do these three rascals plan to get this monstrosity of a bill that Americans hate through Congress? Well, my dictionary defines a bribe as, “something given or promised to a person to influence conduct.” If that doesn’t describe exactly how Reid and Pelosi have acted as leaders of Congress to pass this awful bill, then I don’t know what does.

You can call it an earmark or whatever you want to call it, but it’s still a bribe according to my dictionary. According to the dictionary definition reprinted above, Ben Nelson of Nebraska was “given” a bribe (with your money) to get his vote. A bribe designed to help Senator Nelson get re-elected. By a similar token, Senator Mary Landrieu was given a bribe (with your money) to help her get re-elected.

Reid, Pelosi, Nelson, Landrieu and their ilk don’t deserve another term in Congress, they deserve a term in prison. Let’s throw the rascals (and their friends) out!

The False Narrative

2010-01-05T22:42:00Z

The False Narrative

I was listening to the Chris Plante radio show the other morning on the way to work and was intrigued by his take on the appearance before Congress by the Director of the US Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, in regard to the White House State Dinner interlopers, Michaele and Tareq Salahi.

While poor security at the White House is a serious matter, it wasn’t the party crashers that caught the attention of Mr. Plante. No, Chris focused on the question by liberal Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton that was posed to Mr. Sullivan. Her question was designed to make a point. She said something to the effect of, “Isn’t it true that President Obama has received four times the number of death threats at this point in his Administration than any other President?” This number, “four times” has often been quoted by big media. Representative Norton clearly asked the question in order to reinforce the point that the US is a racist nation.

The Congresswoman must have been stunned when the Director responded – No, the number of threats are “at the same level as it was” during the two previous administrations.

Like Chris Plante, I too had heard the media report a number of times that President Obama had received four times as many death threats as any previous president at this point in his presidency. I accepted it as a sad reality that America is still a racist nation. After all, this was an objective measurement of racism in our nation. The only thing that separated President Obama from Bush and Clinton was, on the face of it, the color of his skin.

And didn’t the White House accuse the tea party folks and the town hall meeting folks of racism? I doubted the latter, but wasn’t their view at least minimally supported by the objective measurement of death threats against this President?

But it wasn’t true! The White House knew it, but instead of clearing up this falsehood, they perpetuated it and embraced it. Apparently it was part of a widespread false narrative that is vital to the powerful grip the Democrats have on black American voters. It is, in fact, something the Democrats and liberals generally treat as absolute gospel. It is shouted from CNN and MSNBC and treated as truth by The New York Times and The Washington Post. It is undisputed fact according to CBS, NBC, and ABC.

In fact, talk to any liberal and you will find an almost fanatical belief that America is a terrible, racist nation. But, clearly on the basis of the objective fact that President Obama has had no more death threats than any other previous President, belies the narrative that America is a racist nation.

You and I have been conned, the American people have been conned and most hurtful of all, black Americans in particular have been conned. This is a scam that makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

The truth is out. The ruse is over. Yet, liberals are in denial. Democratic politicians aren’t just in denial, they choose to maintain this false mantra because if the truth gets out their death lock on the black community will be gone. Without 95% of the black vote, the Democrats will be gone as a national power.

But perhaps the Democrats have nothing to worry about. Facts be damned. I’m sure that you and I can count on a continued narrative from the liberal news media and the Democratic politicians that America is a racist nation.

That is not to say that there is no racism in America. That would be like saying there is no sin in America. Fallen men will always succumb to finding a reason to hate. After all, that’s what racism is, hatred.

Nevertheless, accusing a group of Americans of racism just because they are members of another political party or advocate limited government, a government of laws, and adherence to the US Constitution, is a slander equally bad as racism itself.

The Democrats and liberals in the media will continue to lie to the American people, and especially to black Americans because it suits their narrative and because their grip on political power depends on it.

They conveniently leave out of the narrative the fact that it was Democrats who tried to block passage of Civil Rights legislation and it is the Democrats who have a former member of the Klu Klux Klan as a sitting US Senator.

They seek not a colorblind society where, as Dr. King sought, men and women are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the quality of their character. No, they seek a color conscious society that enables them to keep and expand their power over the lives of all citizens.

But the sands of time are running out on that misguided strategy. It is a political house of cards that is sure to collapse. In many ways black America is much more in tune with conservatives than with liberals.

They oppose abortion, they support school prayer, they seek quality education, they cherish freedom and opportunity, and yes, they support lower taxes. But as long as they still believe that America is racist, and conservatives in general are racist, they will not support Republican candidates. How much longer can the Democrats and their allies in the news media sustain this false narrative? Only time will tell. But, indeed, it is just a matter of time.

2009 Prediction Scorecard & 2010 Predictions

2009-12-30T16:54:00Z

2009 Prediction Scorecard & 2010 Predictions

Well, it seems that no matter how low Katie Couric’s ratings go, she’s going to hang on indefinitely at CBS. I’m going to have to give up on that forecast. Maybe she’ll just go away. I saw that Katie did win an award from Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center—the “Let Us Fluff Your Pillow Award for Obsequious Obama Interviews”. Couric received this distinguished award for making the following comment in one of her “hardball” interviews with President Obama: “You’re so confident, Mr. President, and so focused. Is your confidence ever shaken? Do you ever wake up and say, ‘Damn, this is hard. Damn, I’m not going to get the things done I want to get done, and it’s just too politicized to really get accomplished the big things I want to accomplish?’”

Some things never change. So how did I do with the rest of my 2009 predictions?

Fairness Doctrine. I was right, the Fairness Doctrine was not re-imposed by Congress. I suggested a back door approach and that’s the approach the Obama Administration is taking.
Iraq. Right again. Obama has not pulled all our troops out of Iraq.
Osama Bin Laden. On target. His current status will remain the same in 2009.
New York Yankees. Yes, they made it to the World Series in 2009 and they won.
Washington Redskins. Wrong, they did not make it to the NFL playoffs.
Chicago Cubs. Too easy. They did not, as I predicted, make it into the MLB playoffs in 2009.
Katie Couric. Gone, gone, gone! Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Cuba. The US will recognize Cuba. No, not yet, but they are inching that way.
Economy. Yes, the media continues to say encouraging things about Obama policies and stokes the fires for an economic resurgence, but the economy has stalled. However, roaring “Jimmy Carter” type inflation has not YET returned. I’ll take ¾ of a point.
Spiritual Resurgence. There will be signs of a spiritual resurgence with a positive impact on serious moral problems that confront our nation. The book, “God is Back” does indicate a worldwide spiritual resurgence, but I do not yet see any clear signs of a positive impact on the serious moral problems that confront our nation. I’ll take just ¼ of a point.

I scored six out of ten on my forecasts. My forecast is not worth betting on, but fortunately no one knows the future except God.

So, here are my predictions for 2010.

Republican Resurgence. The GOP not only gains seats in both sides of the US Congress, but amazingly takes control of the US House of Representatives. This is a clear repudiation of the far left policies of the current administration and the Democratic leadership in general.
Chicago Cubs. Once again they do not make it to the playoffs.
Tiger Woods. Takes the entire year off, but keeps his marriage together.
Janet Napapolitano. Gone as the Director of Homeland Security.
Domestic Terrorist Attacks. A marked increase.
Obamagate. The Obama administration is rocked by a huge scandal that includes at least one of his top aides.
Climategate. In spite of the best efforts of the media to kill this story, it continues to grow and expand to include top officials at NASA.
The Economy. It continues to struggle with high unemployment and as inflation ramps up dramatically toward the end of the year.
Supreme Court. The Court rules in favor of Citizens United and against the FEC in a precedent setting case that changes the political landscape by allowing individuals and corporations to both donate to candidates for federal office.
Obamacare. Sadly, it passes in a seemingly toothless form, but sets the stage of one-payer socialized medicine.

There you have it, my predictions for 2010. May not all of them come true. A Happy New Year to one and all!

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-24T17:48:00Z

Merry Christmas!

Tomorrow we will celebrate a gift of love like no other in the history of the world. God sent His only Son from heaven above. Just think of that, God the Father sent His Son to save us—everyone ever born—from their sins. It’s an incomprehensible love—which one of us would send our son (or daughter) to suffer and die for anyone else, no matter how “good” they are? Yet God did not discriminate. In fact, Jesus died for everyone who has been or ever will be born, no matter how vile or disgusting they are.

All you and I have to do is believe in Jesus as our Savior. We can’t buy our way into heaven. We can’t earn our way into heaven. There is nothing whatsoever we can do to get into heaven on our own. It comes only by God’s amazing grace. Wow! That is the most incredible, wonderful Christmas gift of all.

Jesus came down from heaven, a perfect place, to live the perfect life that you and I cannot. And then this sinless Son of God (who was both true man and true God) suffered and died for our sins. But most important of all, He was victorious over the grave. His resurrection gives you and me a 100% guarantee that we too will live forever in the perfect place called heaven.

God put the “merry” in Christmas. It wasn’t merry for Jesus and it wasn’t merry for God the Father, but it is merry for you and me because of what God has done for us.

We were without hope, without God’s plan of salvation. But God in His infinite mercy came to our rescue.

That’s why on December 25th we can sing and rejoice and make merry knowing that God has done it all for us. He has saved us from our own stupidity and foulness. He is the Savior of the World.

So indeed, Merry Christmas!

American Exceptionalism

2009-12-17T23:05:00Z

American Exceptionalism

Is there such a thing as American Exceptionalism? Is America really different or better or greater than any other nation? If it is better or greater, what is the reason?

When asked recently if he believed in American Exceptionalism, President Obama said, “Sure, I believe in American Exceptionalism just like an Englishman believes in English Exceptionalism.” On the surface of it, that sounds realistic. After all, England and the Magna Carta laid the foundation for a free and democratic society. English common law led the way to a government of laws, rather than of men.

The French gave us great art and led the way in invention. They built the Suez Canal and made the world smell better with their perfumes. Germany gave us great music and the Bible in the language of the common man. Spain, where I am writing this from, had the foresight to finance Christopher Columbus, who, on his way to India, stumbled across the New World. Many, many countries have enriched culture, made discoveries, and brought inventions to the world, so why would America be “Exceptional” or unique among the world’s nations?

Are Americans smarter than any other people? Of course we are not. Does America have more natural resources than any other nation? No, many poor nations in South America and even in Africa have more natural resources than the United States. Some would argue that Germany and Japan and South Korea make better cars. Others would say that culture is richer in Latin America or that other nations are more advanced in science, mathematics, or even music. So how can one state that America is superior or unique or better than any other nation? Is American Exceptionalism just nationalism, as President Obama has stated?

Should we as Americans discard American Exceptionalism as a silly idea? A spokesman for the national association of social studies (formerly history) teachers said recently, “Get over it, America is just another country, like any other country, no better or worse.” Was he right? Is Obama right? Is America just another country, no better or worse than any other country?

Rather than opinion, what does the hard evidence indicate? Let’s start with immigration to and from the United States. Are there just as many people heading south across our border into Mexico and Latin America as there are headed north? No, of course not. But Obama might argue that’s just because our economy is so much stronger and better than Mexico and South America. Or he might say that you can’t compare the United States with third world nations. OK, let’s set aside for a moment the reason Mexico and South America are to a great extent relatively poor, third world nations, and agree that it’s not fair to compare them to the US. We’ll also exclude Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe for the same reasons, although it’s hard to argue that Japan is a third world nation. Nevertheless, we’ll limit our comparison to Europe. Is there any desire for those in Europe to visit and stay in the US? And, let’s forget the politicians and other privileged classes of Europe who live in luxury. In fact, I’ll use just a simple example.

My friend Bob runs a large printing and shipping operation in Virginia. Not too long ago, a young Frenchman who had traveled to the US applied for a job. Bob asked him why he wanted to come to the US to work and live here. He had a simple, straightforward answer, “Everyone knows what a great place the United States is,” he said. “Everyone wants to come to the US. Everyone knows that the US is the greatest country in the world.” Apparently not everyone, according to our President.

Admittedly, it can be argued that this simple example is not a scientific study. But, in fact, surveys in Europe and around the globe indicate that people everywhere envy, respect, and admire the United States. They all wish they had the widespread prosperity and freedom of the United States. They stand in awe of the American “can do” spirit.

But the fact that Americans enjoy broader and deeper prosperity more than any other nation in the world is not the cause of American Exceptionalism. It is representative of American Exceptionalism, but the great spread of prosperity, and the movement from poverty to riches that is possible in the US, is made possible only because of individual freedom. That freedom is the cause of our prosperity and the reason that America is the land of opportunity as no other nation in the history of the world is or has ever been.

Although freedom itself is a part of American Exceptionalism, it too is an effect of what makes America truly exceptional.

Alexis de Tocqueville set about to discover the greatness of America when he traveled to this nation in the 1830s. At that time, America wasn’t markedly more prosperous than any other nation, but it was free and the people were constantly in “the pursuit of happiness,” as the Declaration of Independence stated it. What was it, de Tocqueville wondered, that gave the United States this special greatness?

He said he looked for it in our institutions and in our industry, but it was not until he discovered our churches afire with the flame of righteousness that he identified America’s greatness. Or, as another writer put it, “America is great, because America is good. When America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Alexis de Tocqueville identified public virtue as the source of American greatness. Virtue is that part of the American character that makes a man accept personal responsibility for his actions. It is virtue that causes him to work diligently to support his family. It is virtue that causes him to be a good citizen. It is virtue that causes a husband and wife to instill these same values in their children and to be faithful to each other. It is virtue that encourages each of us to be our brother’s keeper.

But where does such public and private virtue come from? Virtue, public and private, doesn’t happen accidentally. It doesn’t come out of the blue. It isn’t automatic.

Personal virtue is a reflection of God’s love for us. The God who blesses us with faith in Jesus as our Savior, grants us, through his Holy Spirit, the opportunity and the ability to show our appreciation for God’s love by exercising public virtue. It’s not that we are perfect. We are indeed just like every other person in the world, imperfect. We sin against God and against each other every day, but God’s love for us constrains us to show our appreciation and love for him by acting in virtuous ways. We are to care for each other. We are to show compassion. We are to understand and appreciate our fallen state and ask for God’s forgiveness.

Recently two Englishmen, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, wrote the book, God is Back. What is clear from reading this book is that what sets apart Europe from America more than anything else is America’s faith in and dependence upon God. As secular and even anti-Christian as America has become in the 21st Century, it is clear from Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s empirical study that it is America’s faith that sets this nation apart from Europe.

Yes, it is faith that comes to us by God’s grace that is the source of American Exceptionalism. By God’s grace we come to faith, by His grace we strive to live lives of virtue. When we strive to live a virtuous life, we are blessed by God with freedom and freedom leads to wide and broad prosperity. Free markets and free speech do not create a perfect society. There is no perfection on this earth. The earth is not an enduring place. Heaven is the home that God created and intended for us. It is to be our destination, and it is our destination by God’s grace through faith.

Yes, President Obama, America is, as people all around the world instinctively recognize, an exceptionally great nation.

Curious Publishing Ethics

2009-12-02T21:04:00Z

Curious Publishing Ethics

What a curious episode in the annals of The Washington Post and its fellow travelers at Newsweek, Time, CBS, ABC, NBC, and sundry other mainstream news outlets that recently put their selective principles on display for all to see. Did you read the story that broke on Monday, November 23 about prominent climatologists in the UK and the US who have been fabricating and hiding documentation that appears to reduce “Global Warming” from settled science to junk science? You didn’t hear anything about it if you rely on the mainstream media giants named above. E-mails between leading climatologists in the US and the UK, which have now been posted on the web, show that the earth is not warming, but rather is in a cooling phase. Moreover, the hidden data indicates that these acclaimed climatologists have data that indicates the earth has apparently been cooling since the 1960s. Yet in public, they have continued to assert that the earth is flat, the sky is falling, and that you and I have caused the earth to warm. These climatologists and their friends in the left-leaning news media say that you and I have to reduce our carbon footprint to avert disaster. We have to reduce our standard of living and enact painful, job killing taxes to survive.

When the damning e-mails were released due to their website being hacked or because of a whistleblower (no one apparently knows what exactly happened), were the giants of the mainstream media who got conned outraged? Did they pour their venom on those who tricked them and the American public? Did these paragons of self-proclaimed virtue rage at the corruption and dishonesty of “scientists” who have foisted a hoax on the world? Did these guardians of the public interest shout the news of this scandal from the housetops and over the airwaves?

The answer is no. The silence was deafening. There were no front page stories or lead stories on the nightly news. There was only silence. Integrity took a holiday. Their principles were apparently set aside. There was no righteous indignation.

The Washington Post sanctimoniously announced that it was above revealing the content of private correspondence. The other minions of the print and broadcast media took their marching orders and remained silent. Apparently the public did not have a right to know.

Remember, these are the same folks who are always too eager to publish classified information that can damage the United States and its men and women in uniform. All the way back to Daniel Ellsberg, the Post has published purloined papers with exuberance and glee because, as they stated, the public had a right to know. They never hesitated to put stolen classified documents right on the front page. Scoundrels like Ellsberg were celebrated.

You may recall more recently that the Post eagerly published classified information on Extraordinary Rendition and Waterboarding, in an attempt to put the US in a bad light. There was no concern for alerting our enemies in the field how to prepare for enhanced interrogation techniques. No qualms about trashing the US. After all, the public has a right to know!

Ah, but when the worm turns and their pet Global Warming theory has been exposed as an apparent hoax, intentionally perpetrated by corrupt “scientists,” it's not worthy of any coverage whatsoever. Did the cat get their tongue?

Who are these climatologists? They are much quoted men in the US and in the UK, who, according to the now published emails, have not only stonewalled requests for historical climate information, but have also falsified data. Their cover-up includes deleted e-mails, altered data, and a campaign to deny academic peer review of any paper which would undercut their assertion that global warming is settled science. Along the way they have vilified legitimate scientists as “skeptics” and even “deniers” (in a clear attempt to equate these men with those who deny the Holocaust).

As noted earlier, it’s not clear if their e-mail correspondence was “hacked” as they claim, or whether it was a courageous whistleblower inside the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) that posted the e-mails on the internet. What is clear is that the e-mails are not taken out of context and that Phil Jones (Director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit) and many renowned climatologists around the globe apparently intended to deceive the public and to discredit any other climatologist who disagreed with them.

These are men of low character. If it were not for the Wall Street Journal, FOX News, The Washington Times and bloggers as well as those in talk radio, this cover up would never have come to light. This scandal is far worse in its potential impact than Watergate. Some of the actions proposed in Europe and in the US could condemn those in third world countries to permanent poverty and squalor.

Sadly, those who have only been reading the mainstream news media and turning on ABC, CBS and NBC have not heard a word about this scandal. It apparently reaches into NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and major US universities (Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University Earth System Science Center). Moreover, it’s likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many other government and United Nations officials, along with other high profile scientists in think tanks and universities, are accomplices to the men already implicated in this cover up?

It’s a nasty, ugly story. One e-mail even suggests violence against another climatologist because he had the temerity to challenge their data. Other aspects include attempts to blacklist those who disagree with their argument that the globe is not only warming, but it is caused by man.

Prior to the release of these emails when Michael Mann was asked by the Wall Street Journal about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Perhaps we could now classify his response as arrogant dishonesty.

Where is the liberal outrage at this hoax that has been perpetrated on the American people, and indeed people around the world? Where is the commitment to disclose the truth? What about the public’s right to know?

Only one Republican Senator, James Inhofe, has called for a full investigation. Have laws been broken? Should there be demands for resignations? Where is the outrage?

The fact that the globe is cooling is, as Al Gore might say, an inconvenient truth that gets in the way of the political movement to take more and more freedom from the average American. Without global warming, what excuse will they have to tell you and I what kind of light bulbs we can use, what kind of cars we can drive, how and when we can heat our homes, how many children we can have, how we can use our property, and all the other restrictions on our freedom that they seek?

Shame on you in the news media who deign to print only what advances your biased point of view. Shame on you who do not truly believe the public has a right to know. Shame on those of you who countenance dishonesty. Shame on you who are willing to compromise the integrity of science to advance your corrupt ideology.

May your readership and your audience continue to decline until you become totally irrelevant.

World’s First Direct Mail Fund Raiser

2009-11-19T18:12:00Z

World’s First Direct Mail Fund Raiser

I’ve made my living in the direct mail fund raising business for more than 35 years. I’m passionate about my clients and their missions. While creating goods and services is important, I believe what my clients do is even more important. Their efforts don’t improve your standard of living, make your life more comfortable, or make your life easier. No, what my clients do is, I believe, even more important—they improve the fabric of our society and encourage good character by supporting American servicemen and women, by rescuing animals in need, by electing good candidates to public office, by creating world-class museums to pass along our legacy of freedom, and much, much more. Nonprofit organizations like the ones I serve add Technicolor™ to our lives. They do good and I get to help them do good. How could anyone have a better job?

Most of you probably think that direct mail fund raising is a rather recent phenomenon. You probably think that it was invented in the 20th century here in the United States. Well, if that’s what you think it’s understandable, but you’re off by nearly 2,000 years. At least that’s what we know from recorded history—from the land of Israel.

The earliest recorded direct mail fund raiser was none other than Paul of Tarsus—Saint Paul, as recorded in 2nd Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9. Of course, his appeal for funds was included with a much longer message of the Gospel, but even by today’s standards, Paul wrote a long, impassioned appeal to the members of the church at Corinth to contribute to the Christians in Jerusalem who were in need.

Paul’s letter followed the form of fund raising letters written today. He addressed them personally by calling them “brothers.” He started his letter with an emotional story of the Macedonian Christians who were dirt poor, but begged Paul to let them participate in the collection to help the Christians in Jerusalem. Paul bonded with the Christians in Corinth by reminding them that they suggested a collection be taken up in the first place. He praised them for their excellence in every area—faith, speech, knowledge, and love. He even mentioned that it was the enthusiasm of the Corinthian Christians that stirred the Macedonian Christians to action in the first place.

As a friend, Paul reminded them that they made the first gift. He even suggested an amount—something that did not leave them poor, but a generous amount that they could give with joy in their heart.

Paul was straightforward, he said complete your contribution now! He also gave them this advice, “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.” (2 Corinthians 9:6) And finally, Paul promised them that their generosity would encourage others to praise God.

What a powerful fund raising letter! What a great example. Enough of that “junk mail” stuff, OK? It is opportunity mail—an opportunity to make this a better place to live.

Putting Lipstick on a Pig

2009-11-10T19:08:00Z

Putting Lipstick on a Pig

Nancy Pelosi has announced that henceforth and hereafter, the “Public Option” for health care will be called the “Consumer Option.” Wow! I feel so much better about the government taking over my health care.

Really, folks, this is, as Sarah Palin might say, like putting lipstick on a pig. You can put as much makeup and lipstick on a pig as you want, but it will still be a pig.

And make no mistake about it, the goal for this pig is to get to a one payer system like Canada and England. We know that’s the goal because Obama has been recorded on video as saying that is his goal.

And a one payer, socialized medicine program means lousy, bureaucratic and poor health care. It’s still a pig.

In England, Canada and every other nation that has socialized medicine, people who need help suffer from ---

Waiting months for care.
A shortage of doctors.
A shortage of nurses.
Emergency room back-ups.
Government bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who doesn’t. If you are 50 or older, expect the worst.
Out of control expenditures for second rate health care.
No new treatments or medications.
Government selection of your doctor.

By any name you choose, Public Option, Consumer Option, One Payer or Socialized Medicine, government run health care is a pig. And don’t forget that our “public servants” who see themselves as our “public rulers” have opted themselves out of any government operated health care system.

Time to read Orwell’s Animal Farm again. It’s turning into reality before our eyes.

Pickett’s Charge & American Liberalism

2009-10-27T21:16:00Z

Pickett’s Charge & American Liberalism

I recently visited Gettysburg and had an opportunity to tour the battlefield with my wife and relatives using a recorded tour CD. The guide who made the CD did a terrific job of describing the events of those momentous days. And, of course, part of his narrative included Pickett’s Charge, which history now recalls as the high water mark of the Confederacy. Of course, as General Pickett and his 12,500 men stepped out across that mile long open field on July 3, 1863, no one then knew that this would indeed be the high water mark of the Confederacy. In fact, even after thousands had died in that ill-fated charge at Gettysburg, no one would have proclaimed that the war had been won. In fact, the war continued for two bloody years. It was only after the fact, that it was possible for historians to look back and say that Pickett’s Charge was the high water mark of the Confederacy.

Similarly, today it is impossible to know with certainty when a watershed event has occurred. It is only by looking back that we can see that it was indeed a turning point.

When Jimmy Carter was elected it soon became clear that his was a disastrous presidency. Why? Because his policies were completely at loggerheads with the American people and because it was evident that he was in way over his head. However, little did conservatives know that the Carter victory in 1976 would lead to a triumph of the conservative movement with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

No, we can’t look into the future or even read current tea leaves to understand the flow of human events. However, I’m beginning to feel a great sameness between the presidency of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. The Obama presidency is, as I suspected, simply Jimmy Carter on steroids.

More than that, each day the Obama presidency is looking more and more like the high water mark of not only Obama, but American liberalism. There’s a certain shock value to electing someone who runs as a moderate promising bipartisanship, low taxes, and bringing Americans together, who turns out to be someone who believes in the Marxist values of redistribution of income.

The Fabian Socialist movement came to the United States in the early 20th century and built up a head of steam in the heady days of Franklin Roosevelt. The Fabians challenged the foundations of American society. They opposed free enterprise, they sought a welfare state, and by and large they rejected God as the foundation of a free society.

After the failure of many of their utopian programs and the realization of a real Communist menace, the impact of the Fabians receded for a number of years until re-kindled under Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The Great Society spent billions and billions of dollars in the greatest social experiment in US history only to make living conditions and opportunities worse for those in poverty. Johnson tried, in vain, to substitute entitlement for opportunity and in doing so, sentenced America’s poor to permanent poverty.

The civil rights movement of the 1960’s breathed new life into liberalism. And indeed, the success of liberalism in supporting equal rights for African Americans was its one shining success. But liberals saw that success not as one for Black Americans, but for them to use to create a permanent Democrat majority. Liberalism corrupted its own success by taking the focus off of opportunity for African Americans and turning it into a means of making Blacks dependent upon them for subsistence living. It was at this point that it became in the interest of liberal politicians to keep Black Americans in poverty and to limit opportunity in order to control their vote. In this they have been quite successful.

After Watergate it looked like the end for the Republican Party. But, in fact, from the ashes of the Nixon Presidency sprang the victory of Ronald Reagan. Scoffed at as “just an actor,” belittled by liberal pundits, and discounted by “self styled” intellectuals, Ronald Reagan had the last laugh.

Entering office at one of the lowest points in American history, Ronald Reagan restored an economy not only afflicted by Great Depression unemployment, but inflation that soared past 22%! Deregulation and tax cuts led to the longest period of prosperity in American history. Contemporaneous with this success, the Reagan Doctrine not only restored respect for America around the globe, but brought down the Soviet Union.

Were the Reagan years the high water mark of conservatism? Perhaps, but I think it more likely that they were just a harbinger of things yet to come. Reagan proved once and for all that a nation cannot spend itself into prosperity. The facts are on the record—tax relief that puts money back into the hands of the citizens is the key to economic prosperity.

We are through the dreary years of Bush ’41, the embarrassing years of Clinton, and the confused years of Bush ’43. But unfortunately we now are forced to endure the wrong headed policies of a very young, inexperienced ideologue who, like Carter, is in way over his head.

The problem for President Obama is that what he is selling, the American people aren’t buying. They were understandably tired of Bush, they were uninspired by John McCain, but they didn’t vote for “hope and change” that included government takeover of the American economy.

President Obama has had many opportunities to get the American people on his side, but he has muffed each one of them. He didn’t help himself by going around the world apologizing for America.

He didn’t help himself by cozying up to dictators like Hugo Chavez and supporting the legally ousted, Marxist President of Honduras. He didn’t help himself by appointing two dozen non-confirmed “czars,” such as Van Jones who believes that George Bush and the Israelis destroyed the twin trade towers in New York City.

And President Obama will only fall further in the eyes of the American public by forcing through a government medical care scheme that no one wants. To continue advancing such policies is political hara-kiri. Obstinately continuing down a course that is overwhelmingly unpopular is a sure road to defeat.

Is that the road Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are headed down? The early sign will be the outcome of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia on November 3. If the Republicans win convincingly in both contests, especially in the heavily Democratic state of New Jersey, then Obama and the Democrats are in real trouble.

If that scenario turns into reality it would take a total about-face by Obama from his current out-of-touch liberal policies to have any chance of keeping 2010 from being a total bloodbath for the Democrats.

Has liberalism in America reached its apogee? That’s my bet. Polls of the American people show that the majority now identify themselves as conservatives, and only a tiny fraction identify themselves as liberals. While that’s good news for Americans who treasure individual freedom, the disaster left behind by this inept and ideologically motivated President will take generations to clean up. Perhaps, just perhaps, American conservatism is on the cusp of its greatest triumph, providing we select a genuine conservative to head up the Republican ticket in 2012. Is the Obama presidency the high water mark of American liberalism? May we be so blessed.

From SNL to Stockholm

2009-10-21T20:16:00Z

From SNL to Stockholm

The Saturday Night Live parody of President Barack Obama was funny because it is true. Even liberals can smile at the lack of any substantive “accomplishment” by the new Administration. Conservatives can join in the laughter and, at the same time, breathe a sigh of relief.

Thus far the ill-conceived government takeover of the health care system is stumbling. The job killing Cap and Trade (cap and tax?) legislation dealing with an ever more scientifically dubious “climate change” issue (formerly “global warming”) seems to be going nowhere. The big political payoff to the union bosses’ “card check” bill has been checked.

The troops are still in Iraq and the President is “committed” to the war in Afghanistan. Guantanamo is not closed. The Patriot Act is still in place.

Just what is it that justifies giving the Nobel Peace Prize to an unaccomplished, new President who has served less than 9 months in office?

Perhaps it is just as FOX anchor Chris Wallace has said, “He’s not George Bush.”

What great fun! The Nobel Peace Prize committee has provided comic relief for decades. With only a few exceptions, the list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients reads like a “Who’s Who” of nut cases and screw balls:

1925 – Austen Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who made a deal with Hitler that sold out parts of Eastern Europe for “peace in our time.” Appeaser without parallel.
1927 – Ludwig Quidde, German Parliament Member who attended various peace conferences designed to end future wars in Europe. So very nice.
1929 – Frank Kellogg, ex US Secretary of State who successfully got the European nations and the US to sign a pact outlawing war. That obviously worked well.
1931 – Nicholas Butler, President of Columbia University, for promoting the Briand Kellogg Pact. Another brilliant choice.
1934 – Arthur Henderson, former English Foreign Secretary and Chairman of the League of Nations Disarmament Conference. Stopped WWII. Well, maybe not.
1935 – Carl Ossietzky, journalist and pacifist, first cousin of Adolph Hitler (I made that last part up).

Note there were no Peace Prize awards between 1939 and 1944. Just too much peace had broken out all across Europe and around the globe thanks to the Nobel Peace Prize awardees.

1950 –Ralph Bunche, Harvard professor who brought peace to Palestine. Oops. Maybe not.
1959 – Phillip Noel-Baker, English MP, “life-long ardent worker for international peace and co-operation.” Me see no evil, me hear no evil, me do no evil.
1962 – Linus Pauling, with a great peace plan: Let’s unilaterally disarm the US in the hopes that the Soviet Union will follow suit.
1973 – Le Duc Tho, North Vietnam, for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord in 1973, which North Vietnam (who brought about the war through aggression in the first place) proceeded to break. Great choice, guys.
1982 – Alva Myrdal, Swedish writer about peace. How nice.
1990 – Mikhail Gorbachev, USSR dictator who presided over the break up the Soviet Union (another peacemaking organization) brought about by Ronald Reagan.
1994 – Yasser Arafat, the pistol packing Chairman of the PLO terrorist organization.
2001 – Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, Mr. “Skim a little off the top for me and my family.”
2002 – Jimmy Carter, the fellow who successfully destabilized both the Middle East and Latin America when he was President. The nice touch was his trashing the US and George Bush in his acceptance speech.
2007 – Al Gore, for something or other. Inventing tin hats with antennas on them? Founding the Flat Earth Society? Something great, I’m sure.

Although this list only covers a few of the nut cases and screwballs who have received the Nobel Peace Prize, I do want to note that on rare occasions the Nobel Committee got it right. Some of their better choices include Lech Walesa (1983), Mother Teresa (1979), and Andrei Sakharov (1975), along with a few other truly notables.

All things considered, I think that the selection of Barack Obama in 2009 is a good choice. It is in keeping with the common sense and practical approach of the majority of past recipients. The President should feel quite comfortable in the company of such distinguished and successful peacemakers.

God Is Back

2009-10-07T15:48:00Z

God Is Back

The book, God is Back, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, may well be the most important book I have read in the last 10 years. Published by Penguin Press, this book is, in respect to religion, a 21st century version of Democracy in America, written by the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, after his visit to America in 1831. It appears that de Tocqueville was attached to, but not active in, the Catholic Church. Some have even gone so far as to describe him as an agnostic. Micklethwait and Wooldridge, editor in chief and Washington bureau chief of The Economist respectively, are natives of England, both educated at Oxford. They identify themselves as a Catholic and an atheist, although they do not identify which is which.

Like Democracy in America, God is Back is a book of observations on the state of religion in the world, with a special focus on what they call “American Style Christianity” and its impact around the globe.

For anyone who is involved with or actively participating in para-church organizations in the US, and for anyone who cares about spreading the Gospel, this book is worth reading. The data provided is surprising, even stunning.

For instance, did you know that by the Chinese government’s own estimates, Christianity in China has grown from “14 million in 1997 to 21 million in 2006”? But, when you add in numbers from the house churches and the underground Catholic Church, today there are “at least 65 million Protestants in China and 12 million Catholics.” The authors surmise that “by 2050, China could well be the world’s biggest Muslim nation as well as its biggest Christian one.”

In discussing the European version of state-run Christianity vs. the American model of choice by the individual, the writers state that the American model “…is winning. America has succeeded in putting God back into modernity partly because it put modernity, or at least choice and competition, back into God.”

They deal with Voltaire, de Tocqueville, the French Revolution and its impact on religion. Darwin, Freud, Huxley, Hardy, and Carlyle are covered in regard to their prediction that faith and religion would disappear as science and modernity proved religion to be false.

The authors contend that “America was not born religious.” But that it “…became religious.” They cite evidence that “Church members never made up more than a third of the adult population of New England before the revolution…” For instance, they say that “by 1683 some 83 percent of the taxpayers confessed to no religious identification.”

They cover the Great Awakenings in the 1730s and 1740s “ignited by America’s first significant theologian, Jonathan Edwards.” And they talk about results, “In 1769-74, the number of Baptist churches in Virginia jumped from 7 to 540.”

The primary uniqueness of the American approach to religion cited by the authors is that while Europeans, especially in the French Revolution, ran away from faith and saw religion as a roadblock to freedom, “revolutionary America embraced religion alongside liberty, reason and popular government.” It is this harmony of religion and freedom that, according to Micklethwait and Wooldridge, set apart the United States from Europe and is still the dividing line today.

“By 1850, the Evangelical churches taken together employed twice as many people as the post office, then the most important instrument of the federal government. They even delivered more letters...They formed societies of every kind—American Bible Society, the American Sunday School Union, the American Temperance Society and so on.”

The information I have provided thus far covers (very lightly and briefly) the first 70 pages of this magnificent book that runs 373 pages in length.

Even if you are just interested in history, this is a book worth reading. You’ll learn about the amazing growth of the Methodist Church, the somewhat strange beginning of the Pentecostal Church, and the astounding size, scope, and influence of modern churches. The rather odd story of Aimee Semple McPherson and the church legacy she left behind is also covered in God is Back.

Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Rick Warren, and James Dobson also play a role in the fascinating story told of Christianity in America. You’ll learn about the astounding financial power of Christianity in America today and what two professional groups are the most active in and leaders of the Christian cause in the US. I predict you’ll be surprised by the answer.

The pace doesn’t flag, the writing is excellent, and the story is amazing and encouraging. You’ll be captivated and inspired. Read this book!