Nov

27

“‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’” 
   -Matthew 22:21

Excuse Me Fundamentalists, But the separation Of church and state was defined by God himself in the New Testament. Our forefathers seemed wise enough to have figured this out as well. Maybe because their interpertation of scripture was more accurate?

We are far from finished. To stop with just this quote attributed in the New Testment to Christ himself would be to take it out of context. You can read the story for yourself, I will paraphrase some of it for you here, but provide enough scripture so you know I am not taking the message out of context.

The religious leadership of the day was trying to trap Christ so they could not only discredit him, but actually have him arrested so he they could neatly “dispose of him” as the message he was preaching was not exactly a shining beacon holding up the Temple. The religous leadership of the day sent a few “plants” (sounding familiar to you?) to ask him tough some questions like…

“‘Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?’”
   Matthew 22:16-17 NASB

Now, let’s go back and think about his answer for a moment. Not only did he advocate a clear separation between “God” and “local/global politics, but he also admonished these people for being a bunch of disengenuous hypocrites.

For me, here is the real kicker. We Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God almightly in the form of a man. Most clergy in the various denominations also take it as fact that verse 22:21 in Matthew represents the actual words of God in the flesh.

In response to a question regarding TAXATION (a favorite subject of the Repulican party in America today) what exactly was God’s reply?

“‘are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin {used} for the poll-tax.’

And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them,

‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’

They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.’ 
 
And hearing {this,} they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.”

Amazed? Amazed as in, “wow I just Tiger Woods birdie the 7th”, or amazed as in “How can this dude be one of us? He is selling us out to the Roman government.”

Now this goes specifically to my fellow Christians out there. The God we believe in just told us in pretty much no uncertain terms to not confuse His kingdom with the one here on earth that is ruled by our fellow citizens (aka the power elite). How exactly are you resolving this scriptural reference in respect to some of the things Christian leadership and the Christian media is writing about and getting politically involved in?

…Listen…

When you are trying to tie your particular viewpoints and beliefs on political and social issues of the day please do not be so arrogant to do so on behalf of the name of God.

Also, do not be so arrogant as to do so in the name of your religous Christian beliefs. I am a Christian, and I do not share many of the beliefs that you expound upon citing God’s name. Trust me when I tell you I am not the only one. We may very well represent the minority of Christians, but there are far more of us than you might think!

I just showed you here scriptual evidence that God DOES not share your beliefs. In fact, God likely thinks you are being a hyprocrite for invoking his name into matters that are NOT of his kingdom.

One final thought on the subject. If we go back to the story in Matthews 22, and if we were to examine the occupying Roman government that had conquered and was ruling the area where this story took place we would find that the Romans were not exactly a “swell” bunch of folks. So, even in the face of a fairly brutual regime, look again at how God answered the question regarding taxation.

Look, you have every right to your opinions. But, you would be wise and do God a great justice by listening to him on this matter as he has spoken, and spoken pretty clearly on this particular matter.

Nov

27

My wife and I received a letter from Dr. James Dobson dated November 2009. It covers a number of subjects. The one I wish to cover is abortion. It is a clear distortion of the facts. I am calling for Dr. Dobson to set the record straight and fill in with facts things he alleges but DOES NOT support with facts.

He begins the letter …

“I’m sure many of you are aware of the assault on the santity of human life that is taking place in our nation’s captiol. It involves outrageous attempts by President Obama and liberals in Congress to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes.”

 If we examine his statement it is quite obvious most of it is an opinion. No problem. We all have opinions. We are entitled to our opinions. Further, there is no requirement that our opinions be rooted or supported by facts.

But, the line I underlined and bolded actually claims to be a fact. The question is…

Is Dr. Dobsons statement “to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes” actually a fact that can supported by some evidence?

He continues on the subject of abortion, writing…

“You may have heard that the president said in a speech to a Joint Session of Congress on Sept. 9 that ‘no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions’(3). We suspected at the time that Mr. Obama’s assurance to the American people was not valid and indeed, that suspicion has now been confirmed. Almost all of the health care proposals put forward so far include public funding for abortion.”

Another fact presented by Dr. Dobson underlined and bolded.

This is the last Dr. Dobson says on this matter and switched gears to other subjects, a number of which I tend to agree with. But, I digress. Dr. Dobson also cites a reference to a government site regarding President Obama’s quote on abortion with regard to healthcare.

Throughout Dr. Dobsons newsletters he cites references. I like this as I can lookup his references and do some fact checking. I checked this reference, and indeed this is what our President said.

But, let’s take a look at the two facts  Dr. Dobson states.

to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes

and

Almost all of the health care proposals put forward so far include public funding for abortion

These are both facts that Dr. Dobson claims. Dr. Dobson presents not a single source to support either of these claims. I find that odd and troubling that he would offer bilbliography to support the presidents saying that abortion would  not be publicly funded, but does not offer a bibiliography in context to these two statements which are the crux of his message and meant to outrage his audience. I am asking Dr. Dobson to offer a source of information to support the two statements he made. I searched and I could not find anything to back up either of those two claims.

IN FACT, I am currently reading the healthcare bill that is now before the Senate for debate. This is the bill that recently passed cloture. I am about halfway through reading it. If you wish to see the bill for yourself here is the link (http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf)

I did a word search across the entire bill on the word “abortion”. Abortion is never mentioned or addressed in this bill.

Next, I searched for the word abortion in the healthcare bill passed by the House of Representatives, ”H. R. 3962″ The word abortion does appear. The following is EVERY SINGLE instance the word appears in this bill. I disclose here that I have taken the liberty of bolding any verbage that directly supports or does not support funding of abortion. I also read very carefully in sections before and after what I am quoting here to ensure that I was not taking anything out of context.  I may have missed something. If so, please call me out.

Here is a link to the 1990 page House of Representatives Bill.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

 

reference page: 109 following

7 (e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
8 MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
9 (1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
10 The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
11 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
12 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
13 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
14 as part of the essential benefits package and the
15 Commissioner may not require such services for
16 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
17 Health Insurance Exchange.

reference page: 110 following

8 (4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING
10 IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be
16 ginning of the plan year involved.
17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING
18 IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved.

reference page: 147 following

3 SEC. 258. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS 
4 RE GARDING ABORTION.
5 (a) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
6 ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
7 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding
8 the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding
9 , or procedural requirements on abortions, including
10 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
11 abortion on a minor.
12 (b) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
13 ABORTION.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be
15 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard
16 ing—
17 (A) conscience protection;
18 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; 
19 and
20 (C) discrimination on the basis of the willingness 
21 or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
22 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
23 training to provide abortion.
24 (c) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—
25 Nothing in this section shall alter the rights and obliga- 
1 tions of employees and employers under title VII of the
2 Civil Rights Act of 1964.

reference page: 148 following 

3 SEC. 259. NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION AND RE SPECT 
4 FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.
5 (a) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency or pro
6 gram, and any State or local government that receives
7 Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amend
8 ment made by this Act), may not— 
9 (1) subject any individual or institutional health
10 care entity to discrimination; or
11 (2) require any health plan created or regulated
12 under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
13 to subject any individual or institutional health care
14 entity to discrimination,
15 on the basis that the health care entity does not provide,
16 pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. 

reference page: 182

18 (d) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION
19 OF ABORTION.—No Exchange participating health
20 benefits plan may discriminate against any individual
21 health care provider or health care facility because of its
22 willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide
23 coverage of, or refer for abortions.

reference page: 246

11 (3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
12 FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.—An affordability credit
13 may not be used for payment for services described
14 in section 222(d)(4)(A).

reference page: 1354 
18 ‘‘(C) the payment of salaries for health
19 professionals and other appropriate SBHC per
20 sonnel; and 
21 ‘‘(2) may not be used to provide abortions. 

reference page: 1359
16 ‘‘(E) does not perform abortion services.

reference page: 1420 following
20 (1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of
21 the Congress that the Director of the National Insti
22 tute of Mental Health may conduct a nationally rep
23 resentative longitudinal study (during the period of
24 fiscal years 2011 through 2020) on the relative men
25 tal health consequences for women of resolving a
1 pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various
2 ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and
3 parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term
4 and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and
5 having an abortion. This study may assess the inci
6 dence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the imme
7 diate and long-term mental health consequences
8 (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.

reference page: 1942 following 

1 ‘‘SEC. 804. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED
2 TO INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
3 ‘‘Any limitation on the use of funds contained in an
4 Act providing appropriations for the Department for a pe
5 riod with respect to the performance of abortions shall
6 apply for that period with respect to the performance of
7 abortions using funds contained in an Act providing ap
8 propriations for the Service.

The facts are as follows:

From the two Bills before us, one passed by the  House, one currently in debate by the Senate:

What was unclear to me was the section on page 110 of the House Bill. It did not offer any specific language as to what is allowed and not allowed for services funding abortion. Having read that section numerous times I still am confused as to intent.

BUT, Back to Dr. Dobson. As you are the voice to many conservative Christians who are not going to take the time to do the degree of research I have done, they are just going to take you at your word, I must conclude the following. This is my opinion, not fact…

Dr. Dobson,

I believe you are knowingly being dishonest in your discourse. I beleive this as you a) site references, have access to the same information I have, yet did not site any references supporting your two statements:

to force the American people to pay for abortions with our taxes

and

Almost all of the health care proposals put forward so far include public funding for abortion

If you have evidence to support these claims please present it. I can find nothing to support your claims. At this point, what is IN WRITING before the American people is to the contrary.

With Matthew 7:5 heavy on my heart right now, I believe you have broken the commandment ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.‘

Many of my friends and family are against abortion and believe that Roe v Wade should be repealed. I have just as many friends and family members that are pro-choice.

I do not want to minimize this issue in the least. But, I do not want to digress from the subject at hand. Dr. Dobson, and many on the right are being dishonset and disengenous. In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, I would contend that they are either a) ignorant of the facts; b) know the facts and are outright being dishonest.

Change my mind and gain my trust and backing by presenting some credible evidence to support what you are saying. What you have done is totally the opposite. If a Christian is truly driven to seek the truth, at some point those that dig deep enough will see that you are not being truthful. Fortunately, there are many of us who know Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior that have the sense to see that you are really no different than the Sadducees and the Pharisees during the time of Christ.

God was bigger than man back then, and he still is today. :-)

As a ps footnote there was an AP Story November 13th. Headline read “GOP chairman ends abortion insurance for employees.”

I am having a hard time understanding all the discourse and activism from the right attacking the current healthcare bill before congress when there are many healthcare plans underwritten by private insurance that cover abortion. I am unable to find any activism at all by these same people towards these companies.

 

Nov

27

In an age when media and access to information is literally at our fingertips anywhere we are at I am having a hard time locating the truth.

My choices seem to all be someone on the right with an agenda, or, someone on the left with an agenda. Facts, where they are presented, tend to be presented out of context, slanted toward ones agenda.

As an independent, in the past 18 months I have becomes so disgusted with just about every aspect of the right and the prople that have now become their main voices. I am disgusted because many of you trust these people to be truthful, and they are being anything but.

But, I have come to realize that the insanity and irrational behavior of the right has serverd to push me into the camp of the liberals. This too I am having a problem with as I wish to remain someone who can listen to ideas, weigh facts and opinion, and draw my own conclusions as to what I think the truth is.

We think of the word truth as an absolute. Actually, by definition, it is. Practice, however, is a far different cry. As individuals, and as coalitions and organizations, we tend to only practice one facet of the definition.

Truth is defined by Websters Online as follows:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

Any way we slice it, whatever side, or point on the continuum you stand, truth ultimately becomes subjective in most cases. Truth, whether we like it or not should ultimately be objective. I think it is hard for any one of us to be objective.

In this day and age, we have access to facts. Yet, finding them sometimes is like finding a needle in a haystack. Why? I will let you begin to draw your own conclusions on this. I have begun to draw my own.

In the process I have come to again realize one very important fact. Getting to the truth takes time, effort, and energy. We live in a world where we face so many important issues both local and global, that set against our busy lives we only get what we need from sound bites that come from people with an agenda, and a perspective either to the right, the left, or the middle.

But…

Just as important as above…

Is their a place where I can go, and get information that is concise, but seperates fact from opinion? But, that also offers me the positions of the left, the right, and the middle weighed directly against the facts?

Getting to truth takes time.

I have two goals in mind. I want to continue using this blog to call people out on their version of the truth, where I think it is distorted, and, well… not the truth. But, I also would like to create a forum where we can look at facts, and apply our opinions to these facts, doing so in a way where it is clear to others what our ideology is.

This too will take some time.

Nov

22

I am still employed as are the vast statistical majority. But, jobs still needs to soon become a national priority. Done correctly, with the future in mind it is not going to be an easy problem to solve.

Why?

Our economy for the past decade has been fueled and supported largely on credit.

We can spend a book or two pointing fingers and laying blame, but I do not want to digress here. I do want to say that this is not a soley a Republican or Democratic created problem, a private business sector problem, an individual consumer problem. It is an American problem to which we are all responsible.

The only quick solution to the unemployment problem would be to go back to a debt based economy. This is not an option, this is the very reason we are in the mess we are in. In took us a long time to get into this position and it is not going to turn around over night.

…BUT…

With a little foresight there is great opportunity.

We are facing a crumbling national infrastructure; we are facing oil supply and dependency issues; we are facing global climate change; our education system has problems.

If you look closely at our history you will see a society that between both public and private investment was able to make a difference in so many areas at critical times within our Republic..  

How did the following come into existance:

- Current energy grid and natural gas pipelines

- State and National road system

- Phone, Cable, Cellular, Satellite infrastructure

- Air travel infrastructure

- Rail infrastructure

They came into being through a combination of both private and public involvement in building something that was sustainable and that had some longevity to it.

What does the America of the next twenty years look like? What is the national vision for our nation? Do we have one?

We have huge problems to face regarding …

- Healthcare

- Energy

- National Infrastructure (roads, bridges)

- National Security (manufacturing, internet, infrastructure)

- Global Climate

- Education

Each one of these represents an opportunity for job growth that can be fueled by cooperation by both the public and private sector.

Take health care as an example. In a 60-Minutes segment aired October 25th “Experts estimate that $60 billion is paid out in fake claims every year”.  [Statement pertaining directly to Medicare claims]

That is a lot of money. Figuring out how to stop this fraud will require people.

I smell jobs.

The passage of a health care bill that will allows millions of uninsured to have access to care (other than the overtaxed ER’s) is going to mean we need more health care infrastructure.

I smell jobs.

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is going to mean great captial investment (both private and public) on our soil.

I smell jobs.

If we can see through the obstructionist lobbyists serving the needs of entrenched American business that seem unwilling to change. If we could actually get more Republicans like Olympia Snowe to start engaging in problem solving we can start creating some of these jobs.

Jobs create revenue. Revenue increases the tax base. We can then focus on reducing our national debt.

 

Nov

18

This is landmark legislation as important as Medicare and Social Security. I am thrilled to see this coming to fruition. It is going to have a positive impact on our nation.

Nov

17

In 1973 the median house size was 1525 square feet. In 2008 is was 2215. 

(Source: http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf) 

That is quite an increase.

According to the 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients,  44% of homeless people worked within the last 30 days, reporting an income of $348.00. How does one live off of that?

Housing has become more expensive. There are not many housing alternatives out there. We used to have boarding houses. Now, if you cannot afford a house or apartment “to bad so sad”. How does one afford housing in high cost of living areas like New York City, Seattle, LA, Chicago working for minimum wage, or even less?

We are becoming a nation with more “have nots” than ever before. What are we doing for these people? What alternatives are there for low income people? Where are the ideas and the innvovation when it comes to housing?

I have mine, you go get your own has become our mentality. I know homeless people that would be greatful for a space half the size of a Motel 6 room that shared a communal bathroom and kitchen. Many of these folks are war veterans living in tents in city parks. They are resourceful in ways you cannot imagine. Many suffer from drug and alcohol problems. They would be the first to admit their problems. But, they are still people with pride and dignity that we have discarded and look upon as human waste.

You see them every day. Many of you look right through them as if they were less than human. Yet most I have had the pleasure to meet and know are decent people, smart, articulate, caring. People like you and I that have fallen on hard times. The homeless are actually as diverse a group as society in general.

But it is not just the homeless. We have millions of fellow Americans that are the working poor. They live in poverty. They cannot afford healthy food. They do not have access to reasonable healthcare. The vast majority of these people are not looking for a handout. They want to work so they can live and yet where are they supposed to live?

I am not advocating socialism, communism, captialism, or any other ism. I am advocating humanity and the spirit of innovation we seem to have forgotten on our journey towards mortgaged materialism.

I still remain a capitalist, but my faith in a system consumed by greed is starting to wane.

Nov

17

This is a question for forty million of you out there.

What would you do without medicare?

“Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day…we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this, and if I don’t do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Ronald Reagan spoke these words in 1961 for a public service ad against medicare.

Now this question is for 45 million of you…

What would your quality of life be without social security?

In 1935 Sen. Bennett Clark of Montana proposed an amendment that would have enabled employers to opt out of Social Security if they had pension plans offering more generous benefits than Social Security. By the way, Clark was a Democrat.

“The Clark Amendment was developed by a group of insurance lobbyists under the leadership of Walter Forster, of the insurance brokerage firm of Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby, and introduced by Senator Clark as an amendment to the Administration’s bill while it was under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee.”

(Source: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/clarkamend.html)

Seems some things never change. Sometimes smart people are wrong.

This is the for all us. Next time you are driving on an interstate imagine what American life would be like had Eisenhower not enacted the  “Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.” Ike was a Republican.

As you look around at our crumbling national infrastructure, as you watch people oppose Obama’s ambitious plans to revitalize our energy grid, build up our infrastructure, and call him a socialist and compare him to Hitler think about what your lives would be like had our earlier leaders not had the foresight to create the SSA, Medicare, or our national interstate highways.

Think hard about these things.

Nov

17

A Third Party?

November 17, 2009 | Leave a Comment

By 2012 We are going to see a 3rd political party emerge. This party is going to be made up largely of moderate Republicans that have been forced out of the Republican party. A number of blue dog Democrats will jump ship and join them. This will be good for America and good for our political system.

The Republican party will no longer be a factor in America. It will go the way of the Whigs. It will not go quietly, but it will go.

America thrives on diversity in political ideas and discourse. We are currently missing this. Mark my words it is going to happen.

 

Blogroll