Intellectual dishonesty? Yeah, and politics as usual.

Further to my last post, the demonstration of politically motivated intellectual dishonesty is absolutely astounding in the last 20 hours.

Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, among others, are pointing fingers at the republicans for the defeat of the so-called bail out bill.  On the defensible side of their argument, 133 republicans did have the good sense to vote “No” on this bill, while 65 voted “Aye.”  Among those who decided to support the bill was my representative.  (Your explanations are not particularly satisfying to me, Lamar Smith R-TX!  I would love to see the figures representing the input your offices received from your constituents and how that compared to your “Aye” vote.  I would be absolutely astonished to find out that your rock-ribbed conservative republican district was in favor of you supporting this bail out!)

But the dishonesty of the democrats’ comments lie in the fact that their party had the necessary votes to pass the bill from within their own party conference.  However, owing to the unpopularity of this bill, some democrats were explicitly given permission by the Speaker to vote against it, so as to avoid fire from constituents in the upcoming elections.  The bill failed to pass by only 12 votes.  Out of 235 democrat members of the House, 95 voted “No.”  95!  The democrats couldn’t get 12 of those 95?  So, it’s the republicans fault?

Further, with respect to Nancy Pelosi, 15 democrat representatives from the California delegation, HER state, voted “No” on the bill.  [For any democrats who may be reading this, to make the math simple for you, that is 3 more than the 12 needed to pass the bill.]  And of the 37 democrat members of Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee, the one that was principally responsible for writing the bill, 12 voted “No.”  As chairman of this committee, he could not get these votes from his own party and his own committee to pass the bill that they created.  What is wrong with that picture?  Can you not see the intellectual dishonesty in trying to paste the defeat of this bill on republicans?

This whole matter lends credibility to the old joke. 

Q:  How can you tell when a politician is lying? 
A:  When their lips are moving!

The democrats are AT BEST telling half truths about the voting results for H R 3997.  How can you tell?  When they try to explain the bill’s defeat, their lips are moving!

P.S.:  To too great a degree, that old joke applies to the republicans as well.  Frankly, I am convinced that no one in Washington can be trusted to speak truthfully about political matters.  Can anyone say “Term Limits”?

I don’t trust these people!

The U.S. Congress has been experiencing historically low approval ratings for a long time now, really since the mid-term elections in 2006 when the democrats gained control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  These low ratings must surely be a reflection of the lack of confidence and trust we have for them.  AT least that is the case for me. 

This link will take you to a website recording the results of the House of Representatives vote on the so-called bailout of Wall Street that was taken on September 29, 2008.  This is as published by the Clerk of the House.  Check out the “Bill Title” found on the third line of the body of the page.*  Does this “Title” appear to describe the matter that is supposed to be dealt with by the commitment of 700 Billion of your and my dollars? 

The image below must surely represent the feelings of our founding fathers at what has become of the country that they fought and some died to establish!  Shame on us!

* In the event the clerk amends the website, the following was the exact verbiage from the site as of 10:50 pm on 9/29/2008 for the roll call vote for H R 3997:

“BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes”

WAC #2

Write a caption.

A look to our own future in the U.S.?

 

“and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”

So says Baroness Mary Warnock of people suffering dementia, suggesting that these people should be euthanized, put down, killed, according to an article today at Al Mohler’s blog.  This article sheds light on a frightening development in Great Britain and their nationalized health care system, more accurately described as ”socialized medicine.”  Frightening because, given our apparent passion for the concept of national health care in the United States, we could be looking at our own future as well, both as a nation and as individuals.

The reality of any insurance program is that the payer of benefits (that is the insurance company), and not the payer of premiums (that’s you and me) determines the type, amount, and degree of service that will be covered by the benefits of the policy.  If you have private health care insurance now, that is the case.  For example, most insurance plans that I am familiar with have different levels of coverage (direct payment or reimbursement) for services provided within their so-called network, and lower levels of benefits for services provided by clinicians outside their network.  This is done according to contractual relationships that the insurance companies have with providers, and to some degree I am convinced on the whim of the insurance company itself. 

Such will be the case with any form of national health care that is being discussed in this current presidential election season.  Don’t believe me?  Just take a look at Medicare today.  And that is just a dip of a toe into the waters of socialized medicine.  The government already does, and increasingly will determine the type, amount and degree of service that will be provided.  And you can rest assured that when there is the least strain on the system, as will doubtlessly be the case with the aging of our U.S. population, diminished coverage will be a reality.  And it seems inevitable that the type of dialog taking place in the U.K., will take place here as well.  Will it be within 10 years of the implementation of socialized medicine in the U.S.?  I don’t know.  Maybe it will be 15 or 20, or even 30.  But I can say with virtual certainty, that it will happen, and with that eventuality, everyone reading these words today could be subject to being euthanized under the sort deranged system of social engineering that will be an economic consequence of socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine, which I fear will be a reality as our republic slips ever closer to Marxism,  is just as great a farce as the Ponzi scheme normally referred to as ”Social Security.”  In fact, as the elderly become more and more expensive to maintain in the economy of our increasingly socialist society, the demands of both of these systems may converge and meet at the point in which the catheter meets the vein delivering the Euthanyl. 

Welcome to our future.

When Sinners Say “I Do”

When it comes to books, I am seldom ahead of the crowd in terms of getting them read before the masses.  When Sinners Say “I Do” is not a new book.  It was published last year (2007), and for some of my readers, this book may be old news.  Still, after finally reading it, I am pleased to recommend it to any of my readers who have not already done so.  And for those who already have, I would love to get your feedback on how the book impacted your understanding and if you are married, how it has changed your perspective on your marriage relationship.

Books on the subject of marriage must surely number in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands.  And, I have read relatively few of them.  In fact, the only ones I can distinctly remember reading are The Exemplary Husband and The Excellent Wife.  Both provide very good instruction from a scriptural perspective about the individual roles of husband and wife.  Not surprisingly, I enjoyed The Exemplary Husband more than its companion for women, but I read The Excellent Wife so that I could confidently recommend it to the young women I have contact with, who are looking forward to marriage, either imminently, or simply looking to the future.

In When Sinners Say “I Do”, author Dave Harvey goes beyond simply telling the reader what scripture says about the roles and responsibilities of men and women in the bonds of marriage, he diagnoses the root problem that is present in ALL marriages…both spouses are sinners!  With wit, humor and wisdom he helps couples apply the truth of the Gospel to the marriage relationship.  And in so doing, he helps married couples strengthen the bonds of marriage and to see their potential to glorify God in their covenantal relationship.

Not a difficult read, and at 183 pages in length, not one that will take a great deal of time to tackle.  Every married person should read this book, unless of course you are not a sinner.

Oh, what’s the next generation coming to?

One of the ways in which God has chosen to bless me is with the privilege forming relationships with a bunch of college-aged young people every summer.  It would not be at all incorrect or unflattering to describe these young men and women as “ordinary” on a variety of different levels.  They come from a variety of family backgrounds, and financial circumstances.  Their faith backgrounds and upbringing vary from devout to virtually non-existent.  They have many different academic interests and career aspirations.  Some are fastidious in their appearance, (all of the ladies, and some of the guys), while a few sport sort of a ”college scruffy” look ( none of the ladies and some of the guys).  In lots of ways, they seem just like every other young person on a college campus.  And if the setting was a classroom, or just seeing them walk across campus, you’d probably never pick my friends out from the others. 

But they are all far from “ordinary”, in fact they are exceptional in the sense that have a profound awareness of a personal calling, and it is a calling that they are responding to.  They all profess a faith in Jesus Christ, and a willingness to serve Him, despite the alternative pursuits that are available to them and how they could choose to spend their time away from school.  And some go from there, to vocational ministry.

I met two such guys during the summer of 2003 and have maintained a relationship with them ever since.  They are brothers.  I can say that both of them have served to encourage and challenge me to a much greater extent than I could ever imagine I may have done in return for them.

In the relatively short existence ”WHATEVER!”, I have linked to their two separate blogs, and now to their shared blog “irruption.”  I commend their site to all of my readers.  Because of other commitments, they do not always post on a daily basis, but their site is well worth linking to, or adding to a reader.

           

As you get a glimpse of their minds and their spirits, note that these two guys are only in their mid-twenties!  They are both wise beyond their years.  One brother has completed his M.Div. and is currently pursuing doctoral studies in New Testament.  The other is still studying for his M.Div. in Christian Ministry and, as you will read, is exploring God’s call to plant a church in Philadelphia.

Since I am in my mid-fifties, and they in their mid-twenties, that makes them the ”next generation” for me.  And, in answer to my own question in the title, THIS is what at least part of the next generation is coming to.

You’ll be informed and inspired!

My first exposure to Boris Johnson, mayor of London, occurred during the closing ceremonies of the 2008 Olympic Summer Games in Beijing.  His role was minor, but full of symbolism.  He marched onto the stadium floor of the “Bird’s Nest” along with Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympics Committee, and Guo Jinlong, mayor of Beijing.  In the ceremony, Rogge took the Olympic flag from Guo and handed it to Johnson.  Deal done.  Games move to London in 2012. 

At the time of the ceremony, I mentioned to my wife, who was watching with me, that Johnson seemed somewhat awkward, particularly during the procession into the stadium.  He wore a poorly fitting suit, with jacket unbuttoned, and his hair was a tousled mess.  This was in stark contrast to the neat and tailored appearance of Rogge and Guo.  As a marketing guy, I thought it was odd, given literally the global audience for the closing ceremonies, that Johnson’s handlers did not see to it that London was put in a better light.

After the closing ceremonies, Johnson appeared at a London 2012 party in Beijing and made about a 4.5 minute speech.  It was a thoughtful energetic message, acknowledging the athletes of Great Britain during the 2008 Games and looking forward to the Games in London.

Here is a short excerpt from that speech.  I will be the first to say that for whatever Boris Johnson lacks in sartorial splendor, he makes up for it in insight and enthusiasm.  I think you will find his message is both informative and inspirational.  LIsten and learn. 

As a person whose bloodlines find their origins in the countries now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I could not be more happy for, or proud of the land of my forefathers.  I mean, who knew??!!

The right answer, and the REAL answer.

Last week Charlie Gibson started his much ballyhooed interview with Sarah Palin by immediately asking her if she was prepared to be president.  For an interview that was spread over three nights’ broadcasts, could he not have taken the time to begin the interview with something more cordial like “how has it been now that you are home in Alaska for the first time since your nomination for Vice President?”  Or even a more personal approach, like “tell us about your day with [son] Track as you said goodbye before he deploys to Iraq.”  

No, he starts by throwing a fast ball, high and inside.

Sarah Palin answered the question EXACTLY as she should have, saying “yes” (she is prepared).  It is hard to imagine that any mentally competent person expected her to answer otherwise.  Even her political foes must not have been surprised with that answer, even though they do not believe the answer to be true.  Because, the answer she gave was the right answer.  And it was the right answer because in our political culture, it was the only answer she could have given if you hold to the presupposition that she wants McCain to be elected president, with her as his running mate.

But the REAL answer to Gibson’s question is one that everyone ought to acknowledge, but virtually none will.  And that answer is, NO ONE is prepared, in the strictest sense, to take the job of President of the United States. 

Wait!  What? 

That’s right, NO ONE is prepared to be President of the United States of America.  And by prepared, I don’t mean a person’s ambitions, attitudes, or their intellectual capacity.  What I mean is that NO ONE is prepared, by virtue of previous experience.  

“Do you have the experience and the ability” (to be President)?.  That is the way Gibson phrased the question.  Yes, being a governor involves the type of executive experience that is part of the President’s job.  But even being governor of any one of the largest states in the union falls short of the responsibility of President of the United States.  And, yes, being a senator provides legislative experience, and sometimes access to information that is considered highly sensitive and sometimes secret.  But that again falls short of real preparation to assume the office of President.

Unlike jobs in the private sector where a CEO of a corporation, or a non-profit, or some other organization can change jobs, and bring with him/her the kind of direct experience that could legitimately be called “preparation,” there is absolutely NO job in the world that provides the kind of experience that comes close to approximating the responsibilities and duties of President.

The question of preparation, meaning experience, really is mute.  So, media, get on with asking relevant questions about positions, planned policies and objectives of the candidates for President.  I would suggest to Charlie Gibson and others of his ilk, that they begin asking these relevant questions about what a candidate plans on doing if they are elected, and lay off of the innane ”gotcha” type questions that have such predictable answers.  They are not helpful to understanding the candidates.

The relative certainty of “certainty.”

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, the western Gulf of Mexico has experienced two hurricanes, Gustav, which struck Louisiana, and Ike that hit the northern Texas coast this weekend. 

State and federal officials communicated with some certainty, that both storms would be tremendous events, with significant threats to human life and property.  Mandatory evacuation orders were issued and many residents left their homes.  In the case of Hurricane Ike, residents of Galveston were told that unless they left the island, they faced “certain death.”  Fortunately, that was not the case, and neither Gustav nor Ike proved to be as intense as originally expected.

As I reflect on the predictions of Hurricane Ike, the statement “certain death” is the one that keeps surfacing, particularly the way in which it was expressed with such certainty.  In retrospect, there was no absolute certainty, to their certainty, as the casualties from the storm are not reflective of that prediction.  So, has certainty become relative?  Is it possible that we can only be “relatively” and not “absolutely” certain about future events? 

I recall learning as a kid from my Dad that the only two things in life that are certain, are death and taxes.  Experience would suggest that it is hard to argue with that.  But faith suggests to me that there is at least one other thing that is absolutely certain.  And that is, the course to eternal life runs through Jesus Christ, and ONLY through Jesus Christ. 

John 14: 6 says:
“I [Jesus] am the way, and the truth and the life.  NO ONE (emphasis mine) comes to the father except through me [Jesus].”

Dogmatic?  Yeah.  Exclusive?  You bet.  Ambiguous?.  Hard to see how!

Before he was disgraced by his moral failure a couple of years ago, I watched Ted Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, being interviewed on one of the major television networks.  Sadly, when he was asked if he thought Jesus Christ was the only way to God, he expressed sort of an equivocated certainty.  His answer was something to the effect of “maybe there are other ways to get to God, but he was at least confident in this one,” (that being through Jesus Christ, and he quoted John 14: 6).  But his “certainty” was relative, otherwise, why offer up the possibility of there being other ways?  He was revealing a certain lack of faith by being only relatively certain of Jesus’ own claim that NO ONE comes to the father except through Him.

In the fullness of faith, I want my witness to be the certainty of Christ’s claim of exclusivity.  And about that, I am absolutely certain.

Pray for Texas!

  

“…he commands even winds and water, and they obey him.” (Luke 8: 25)