As unemployment in many states climb into double digits, preparing for a possible job loss is on many people’s minds. While a layoff is beyond the control of most people, there are many things that you can do to prepare for the possibility.
An important point is that the earlier you start preparing, the more prepared you will be when and if your layoff comes. Even if you believe that your job is well protected, getting your financial life in order will benefit you, even if you never face a job loss.
The best way to start preparing for financial hardship is to get out of debt. By eliminating your monthly payments, you free your money for other things. Whether your goal is creating a nest egg for an emergency or buying a new house or car, it will be easier to accomplish if you have fewer monthly bills.
Consumer guru Dave Ramsey (www.daveramsey.com) has developed a successful seven-step program to pay off your debts and start building wealth. Unlike many programs, this one costs nothing and is simple to implement. If your layoff is not looming near, this is a great place to start.
If your layoff is imminent, contrary to Dave Ramsey’s advice, my recommendation would be to start stockpiling money. I was laid off (furloughed in airline parlance) in 2005 shortly after I had started taking some of Dave Ramsey’s advice. My debt was reduced to about $1000 when the paychecks stopped coming. At that point, my debt started increasing again because I had little or no money in the bank.
Don’t wait until the last minute to start looking for a new job. A good time to update your resume is before you need it. If you don’t have a resume, start one. You can find simple guides both online (such as http://www.resume-help.org/resume_writing_tips.htm) and in books. If writing your own resume is intimidating, there are many services that will write them for you.
If you believe that you are about to lose your job, start sending out your resumes immediately. Use classified ad sites on the internet and your local newspapers to target your search. Yahoo jobs and monster.com are two popular job search sites. There are also specialty sites for many job fields and geographic areas. Networking with people you know may also lead to possible jobs.
In today’s job market, don’t focus on a job like your old one. Examine your skills and experience and apply for every job for which you qualify. Consider a career change. Even retail or part-time employment can help to pay your remaining bills. Take care that part-time jobs do not conflict with your unemployment payments.
Before you leave your old job, you should also ask your friends and coworkers to provide you with reference letters and referrals. References from your most recent job are more valuable than older ones. An important point to remember is that you should always ask before using anyone as a reference. Make sure that they remember you and have something positive to say about you.
If you are about to be laid off, do not try to maintain your current standard of living. You must immediately set priorities to conserve your cash. Your priorities should be to maintain your home, feed your family, and to find a new job. This means that you should concentrate on paying your mortgage, electricity, heating fuel, and water bills above all else.
Credit cards and unsecured debt are low priority. Failure to pay a credit card will not result in foreclosure, repossession, or loss of electricity or water. The credit card companies can do little more than harass you or cut off your lines of credit, which you shouldn’t be using at this point anyway.
Don’t just abruptly stop making payments though. Talk to your creditors and explain your situation to them. They may be more understanding if you work with them from the beginning. Explain to them that you will pay them back when you are able, but that without a job, you cannot pay.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act limits the actions that debt collectors may take. They are not allowed to harass or threaten you. To find out what debt collectors can and cannot do, check with your state consumer protection agency or visit this link:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200601/fairdebt.pdf
Eliminate any payments that are not necessary. Some examples of nonessential spending are cable television, eating out, trendy clothing, and anything that will not help you find a job or contribute to your basic survival. If you have expensive car loans, you may need to consider selling the vehicle and buying an older car that you can pay cash for. This may also allow you to reduce your insurance coverage. You may also be able to reduce your cell phone plan to a more basic service that eliminates texting and other services.
If you have toys, such as boats, motorcycles, or recreational vehicles, consider selling them. You may be able to generate enough money to pay your bills for a few months. If these items are not fully paid for, they should definitely be placed on the market since the loan payments will constitute an unacceptable drain on your cash reserves.
When you do lose your job, do not waste any time in applying for whatever assistance that you can qualify for. This may include unemployment compensation payments, health benefits, food stamps, women-infant-children (WIC) vouchers, and occupational training. Benefits vary by state. Check with your local state offices and apply for everything.
In some cases, you may be required to cash out of your retirement plans and investments before qualifying for assistance. My recommendation is not to do this unless absolutely necessary due to the heavy penalties involved in withdrawing money from 401k or IRA plans. Additionally, if you sell your stocks now, you will probably be selling for far less than the purchase price of your stock. Normally this would result in a tax write-off, but without income the write-off would be worthless. The bottom line is that if you need the money, withdraw it and take the penalty.
Many employees will qualify for COBRA rights under their health care plan. Under COBRA, you can continue your employee health plan for up to 18 months. The problem is that under COBRA, you must pay the entire cost of the plan plus a 2% administrative fee. Since most employers pay a portion of health insurance premiums while you are employed, the total cost of your health insurance will likely be more expensive that what you paid in the past. Through the end of 2009, there is a federal subsidy of 65% of the COBRA premium.
When deciding whether to purchase insurance under COBRA, consider several factors. First, if you have a pre-existing condition, you should probably purchase the COBRA insurance. Pre-existing conditions may make it difficult to obtain individual health plans.
Second, contact local health insurance agents to obtain a quote for health insurance. Don’t try to replicate your employer-paid group plan. Look for a simple major medical plan with a deductible that is as high as you can afford. If you have prescriptions that you must take, do look at the prescription coverage or shop around for a separate prescription discount card.
A final, but not trivial, consideration is maintaining the will to survive. Anticipate the fear and depression that you will face in the coming months. Try to stay positive. Do not try to carry the whole load yourself. Rely on your friends and family. Military survival manuals stress the need to use the buddy system to prevent panic and capitalize on group strength.
The military survival manuals also suggest spiritual avenues toward maintaining your mental strength and will to survive. Pray and remember the times that God has helped you overcome adversity in the past. Seek fellowship in a local church. Attending services, singing, and talking to people can help to boost your morale. Above all, trust God and your family to help see you through the crisis.
Remember that the financial crisis is not permanent, either for the United States or your family. Better times will return. Your most immediate job is to preserve your family and as much as possible of what you have worked for until that day comes.
Sources:
www.daveramsey.com
http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/cobra.html
http://www.equipped.org/multiservice_ser_manual_1999.pdf
Air Land Sea Application Center, Survival, Evasion, and Recovery, US Government, June 1999, Appendix A
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200601/fairdebt.pdf
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
America! Celebrating God and Country
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
-Star Spangled Banner (1812)
From its very inception, America and Christianity have been inseparable. Among the first European settlers of American continent were persecuted Christians from a number of countries.
Every school child knows the story of the Pilgrims who arrived in 1620, fleeing both English persecution and Dutch moral relativism. Not so well known is the story of Squanto, the Indian who saved the Pilgrims from starvation.
About ten years before the Pilgrims arrived, Squanto was among a group of Indians kidnapped by English traders and sold into slavery in Spain. Squanto was bought by a Spanish monk who taught him about Jesus. Squanto made his way to England where he was employed by John Slaney, who helped him to return to America in 1618. When Squanto returned, he found that his entire village had been wiped out by a plague. Everyone that he knew was gone.
When the Pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower in 1620, they landed at the location of Squanto’s village. Fields had already been cleared and the land was fertile. However, the Pilgrims landed in December and many of them died before spring.
Imagine their surprise in the spring when they met Squanto, an Indian who spoke English and introduced himself by asking if they had any beer! Squanto adopted the Pilgrims and taught them how to cultivate the land, hunt, fish, and became their guide and intermediary with the surrounding tribes. He lived with the Pilgrims until he died and then left all his possessions to them.
The story is all the more amazing because the Pilgrims had no intention of settling in Plymouth. They had originally set out for Virginia. When they realized that they were far north of Virginia, they set sail again, this time for New York. Strong winds at sea forced them back to Massachusetts.
Governor William Bradford wrote that Squanto “became a special instrument sent of God for good….” Without Squanto, the Pilgrims might well have become a “lost colony” and the American tradition of Thanksgiving to God would never have happened.
In addition to the Pilgrims and Puritans, many other groups seeking religious freedom also made their homes in the New World. There were Quakers in Pennsylvania, Calvinists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, and Shakers in upstate New York. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopalians and others also made their homes in America. Jews were also welcomed into the colonies.
As Michael Medved points out, the colonists did not seek individual religious freedom to follow their own conscience. Instead they sought purity. To that end, many colonies, and later many states, had official state religions long after the adoption of the first amendment.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
-Battle Hymn of the Republic (1863)
On July 9, 1755, George Washington should have been a dead man. Twenty years before the first shots of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord, Washington was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Virginia militia. During this period of the French and Indian War, he fought with British General Edward Braddock.
The British force was attempting to take the French Fort Duquesne near what is now Pittsburgh and remove the French from the Ohio Valley. They walked into a trap. After crossing the Monongahela River, the British force was attacked by a smaller force of Indians and French soldiers. The British were caught in the open while the attackers fired at them from behind cover.
One by one, the British officers fell dead or wounded. General Braddock took a mortal wound in the lung. Finally, Washington was the only remaining British officer. The Indians took aim at him.
Washington’s horse was shot out from under him twice as the Indians fired round after round at him. Twice he remounted horses left by dead or wounded comrades. In spite of being specifically targeted by Indian sharpshooters, Washington was untouched. He rallied the men who were left and escaped the killing ground. After the battle, Washington found that four bullets had passed through his coat, but none had hit his body.
A few weeks after the battle, Rev. Samuel Davies, later President of Princeton, said in a sermon, “I may point out to the public that heroic youth, Col. Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal a manner for important service to his country” (Medved, God’s Hand on America).
Years later, one of the Indian chiefs told Washington, “Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you… The Great Spirit protects that man [Washington] and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.” (Mac, p.13)
Washington was never injured in battle.
America, America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm they soul in self control,
Thy liberty in law…
America, America!
May God thy gold refine
Til all success be nobleness
And every gain divine.
-America the Beautiful (1895)
Twenty years later, George Washington fought his old comrades in the British army. As his ragtag band of Continentals faced overwhelming odds against a well trained and disciplined foe, Washington and his army were saved again through divine intervention.
On August 29, 1776, the Americans were falling back as the British attacked their fortifications around New York City. The British and their Hessian allies outnumbered the Americans almost four-to-one. The Americans were low on powder and had their backs to the East River. They expected to a British attack at any moment. They expected to be beaten. They expected to hang.
General Washington ordered his men to “firmly rely on the protection of Divine Providence” saying “God has not brought us this far to desert us.” (Mac, p. 31)
The expected British attack did not come. While he waited, Washington formed a plan. He would evacuate his army across the mile-wide river. The plan entailed a huge risk: if the British heard the sounds of the crossing, Washington’s army would be split.
Just one day before, a regiment of Massachusetts fishermen had arrived to reinforce the Americans. These skilled seamen would move Washington’s army to safety. Throughout the night, the men made repeated trips across the river carrying soldiers, supplies, horses, and cannon.
A Tory woman realized what was happening and sent one of her black servants to warn General Howe, the British commander, that the Americans were escaping. The man successfully reached the British lines with his message, but was stopped by a Hessian sentry who did not speak English. The message did not reach Howe until it was too late.
As morning came, much of the army was still facing the British. Major Benjamin Tallmadge described what happened next: “At this time a very dense fog began to rise out of the ground and off of the river, and it seemed to settle in a peculiar manner over both encampments. I recollect this providential occurrence perfectly well, and so very dense was the atmosphere that I could scarcely discern a man at six-yard distance…. We tarried until the sun had risen, but the fog remained as dense as ever.” (Mac, p. 32)
The fog remained until the last boat, carrying General Washington, had departed. As the fog lifted, the British realized that the Americans had vanished. The first British soldiers to reach the American trenches fired on the last boats, but they were already out of range. The American army survived. A few months later, on Christmas night, they would cross another river, the Delaware, to deliver a stunning defeat to Hessians encamped in Trenton.
Was it random chance that held back the British and allowed a thick fog to cover the battlefield for exactly as long as the Americans needed? General Washington apparently believed that it was no coincidence. Even before the incident, he valued and promoted Christianity in the Continental army. The day after he took command, he issued a general order indicating that he “requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance of divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven for the means used for our safety and defense.” (Medved, p. 80)
Washington further stated, “ While we are duly performing the duty of good soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of a patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian.”
Let tyrants shake their iron rod
And slav'ry clang her galling chains;
We'll fear them not. We trust in God;
New England's God forever rains.
Howe and Burgoyne and Clinton, too
With Prescott and Cornwallis join'd,
Together plot our overthrow,
In one infernal league combined.
When God inspired us for the fight
Their lines were broke, their lines were forc'd,
Their ships were shelter'd in our sight
Or swiftly driven from our coast.
The foe comes on with haughty stride,
Our troops advance with martial noise.
Their vet'rans flee before our youth
And generals yield to beardless boys.
What grateful offerings shall we bring,
What shall we render to the Lord?
Loud hallelujahs let us sing
And praise his name on every chord.
-Chester (Marching hymn of the Continental army)
As the new nation grew into the shining city on a hill (Matthew 5:14 and 1630 sermon by Puritan John Winthrop), it kept its ideals as a nation devoted to God. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states that “religion, morality and knowledge” are “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind” (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8). Upon approval of the First Amendment to the Constitution, Congress issued a request for the President to “recommend… a day of public thanksgiving and prayer” to acknowledge “the many signal favors of Almighty God…” President Washington responded by declaring November 26, 1789 to be devoted to “the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficient Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be” (Medved, p. 83).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-Declaration of Independence
It is widely accepted that the ideas and philosophies that led the creation of the American republic are rooted in the work of theologian John Calvin. As Calvin’s writings helped throw off the oppression of the Catholic Church in the Reformation, they also led to political freedom. Calvin’s acceptance of capitalism helped to end the feudal system of the Middle Ages and led to the Protestant work ethic. This, in turn, led to the creation of a middle class and the ability of commoners to have a greater voice in government. Calvin’s work was carried on by John Knox. Both theologians influenced the Presbyterians and other Protestants who made up the bulk of the Continental army.
Our fathers' God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.
-My Country Tis of Thee (1831)
God and the Bible even helped America through its darkest days so far: the days of slavery and War Between the States. While slavery presented an enormous evil, it was also an evil that was common throughout world history.
It was the Christian religion and the Bible that sowed the seeds of equality, which would one day bring the abolition of slavery, as well as eventual racial equality and integration. Jesus taught that men were equal (Matthew 20:25-28). The Biblical book of Philemon broke new ground by teaching that slave owners should consider their slaves as more than property.
Quakers were among the first to oppose slavery. The abolitionist movement made its largest gains with William Wilberforce, an English Member of Parliament and Christian who was instrumental in banning slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833. In America, John Brown, who saw himself as a prophet, became a martyr for the abolitionist movement. The fearless Harriet Tubman’s faith in God inspired her to lead untold numbers of slaves to freedom.
Many, including Abraham Lincoln, saw the War Between the States as a punishment for the sin of slavery. In his second inaugural speech, Lincoln said, “If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether" (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm).
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.
-God Bless America (1938)
Even after the War Between the States, it took another hundred years for we the people of the United States to fully realize equality between races, sexes, and ethnicities. Along the journey, God and the Bible inspired people such as the Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, Jr. and countless lesser known Christians to spread the word that God had created all men equal.
At the same time that Americans were confronting their racist demons and after the defeat of fascism, they were also fighting the Cold War against an atheistic enemy. The Soviet Union was attempting to export its communist philosophy around the world. Eastern Europe and China fell to the communists and nations around the world, from Europe to Africa to Asia were threatened. According to the Black Book of Communism, communist regimes were responsible for 94 million deaths. (With communist regimes still active in China, North Korea, and Cuba, the number is still increasing.)
The Cold War was America’s longest war. In the end, America was victorious as the Soviet Union disintegrated and oppressed people around the world stood up to take back their freedom. In another example of divine timing, President Franklin Roosevelt removed Vice President Henry A. Wallace from the Democratic ticket in 1944 and replaced him with Harry S Truman.
Harry Truman became Vice President on January 20, 1945 and president a few months later when FDR died on April 12. Wallace was a communist sympathizer (like many New Dealers). If he had become president, he would not have resisted the communist onslaught. In contrast, Harry Truman helped preserve Western Europe and South Korea as well as playing a role in the establishment of the nation of Israel. If Truman had not become president, the world would be a very different place and the toll of communism would have been much higher.
In contrast to other national powers throughout history, America is not an imperialist power. Where other nations have fought and conquered to add to their empires, America fights and conquers, as Woodrow Wilson put it, to make the world “safe for democracy” and the principle that “peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.” The conquests of America are today seen as beacons of democracy, stability, and prosperity: Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and, in the future, Iraq.
“I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
There have been many other instances of what our Founders referred to as “Divine Providence.” The relationship between Americans and God has been close from the earliest days of our nation. God has both blessed us and punished us. Nevertheless, America has remained the “promised land” and the “shining city on the hill.” It is my fervent prayer that the United States of America will remain, as Abraham Lincoln said, “the last, best hope of earth.”
Happy Independence Day and may God continue to bless and protect America
What our founders and leaders had to say about God and the Bible:
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1871
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. “
-John Adams
"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
- Calvin Coolidge, 1923
“...The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ ”
– Benjamin Franklin
“Were my soul trembling on the wing of eternity, were this hand freezing to death, were my voice choking with the last struggle, I would still, with the last gasp of that voice, implore you to remember the truth: God has given America to be free.”
– Patrick Henry
“The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”
-Alexis de Tocqueville
"I care not if God is on my side. My constant hope and prayer is that I may be found upon God's side."
-Abraham Lincoln
“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.”
– Franklin Roosevelt
“A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.”
-Martin Luther King
“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
– Ronald Reagan
Sources:
Mac, Toby and Tait, Michael, Under God, Bethany House, Minneapolis, MN, 2004.
Medved, Michael, The 10 Big Lies About America, Crown Forum, New York, 2008.
Kennedy, D. James, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1994.
“God’s Hand On America,” Michael Medved Radio Show Podcast, December 25, 2008.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=3694
http://www.answers.com/topic/squanto
http://www.answers.com/topic/pilgrims
http://www.britishbattles.com/braddock.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/george1.html
http://www.britishbattles.com/long-island.htm
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/battlelon_ih.html
http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/song-midis/Chester.htm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-calvin
https://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/115756.pdf
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Truman#First_term_.281945.E2.80.931949.29
July 4, 2009
Denver Co
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
-Star Spangled Banner (1812)
From its very inception, America and Christianity have been inseparable. Among the first European settlers of American continent were persecuted Christians from a number of countries.
Every school child knows the story of the Pilgrims who arrived in 1620, fleeing both English persecution and Dutch moral relativism. Not so well known is the story of Squanto, the Indian who saved the Pilgrims from starvation.
About ten years before the Pilgrims arrived, Squanto was among a group of Indians kidnapped by English traders and sold into slavery in Spain. Squanto was bought by a Spanish monk who taught him about Jesus. Squanto made his way to England where he was employed by John Slaney, who helped him to return to America in 1618. When Squanto returned, he found that his entire village had been wiped out by a plague. Everyone that he knew was gone.
When the Pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower in 1620, they landed at the location of Squanto’s village. Fields had already been cleared and the land was fertile. However, the Pilgrims landed in December and many of them died before spring.
Imagine their surprise in the spring when they met Squanto, an Indian who spoke English and introduced himself by asking if they had any beer! Squanto adopted the Pilgrims and taught them how to cultivate the land, hunt, fish, and became their guide and intermediary with the surrounding tribes. He lived with the Pilgrims until he died and then left all his possessions to them.
The story is all the more amazing because the Pilgrims had no intention of settling in Plymouth. They had originally set out for Virginia. When they realized that they were far north of Virginia, they set sail again, this time for New York. Strong winds at sea forced them back to Massachusetts.
Governor William Bradford wrote that Squanto “became a special instrument sent of God for good….” Without Squanto, the Pilgrims might well have become a “lost colony” and the American tradition of Thanksgiving to God would never have happened.
In addition to the Pilgrims and Puritans, many other groups seeking religious freedom also made their homes in the New World. There were Quakers in Pennsylvania, Calvinists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, and Shakers in upstate New York. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopalians and others also made their homes in America. Jews were also welcomed into the colonies.
As Michael Medved points out, the colonists did not seek individual religious freedom to follow their own conscience. Instead they sought purity. To that end, many colonies, and later many states, had official state religions long after the adoption of the first amendment.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
-Battle Hymn of the Republic (1863)
On July 9, 1755, George Washington should have been a dead man. Twenty years before the first shots of the American Revolution were fired at Lexington and Concord, Washington was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Virginia militia. During this period of the French and Indian War, he fought with British General Edward Braddock.
The British force was attempting to take the French Fort Duquesne near what is now Pittsburgh and remove the French from the Ohio Valley. They walked into a trap. After crossing the Monongahela River, the British force was attacked by a smaller force of Indians and French soldiers. The British were caught in the open while the attackers fired at them from behind cover.
One by one, the British officers fell dead or wounded. General Braddock took a mortal wound in the lung. Finally, Washington was the only remaining British officer. The Indians took aim at him.
Washington’s horse was shot out from under him twice as the Indians fired round after round at him. Twice he remounted horses left by dead or wounded comrades. In spite of being specifically targeted by Indian sharpshooters, Washington was untouched. He rallied the men who were left and escaped the killing ground. After the battle, Washington found that four bullets had passed through his coat, but none had hit his body.
A few weeks after the battle, Rev. Samuel Davies, later President of Princeton, said in a sermon, “I may point out to the public that heroic youth, Col. Washington, whom I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal a manner for important service to his country” (Medved, God’s Hand on America).
Years later, one of the Indian chiefs told Washington, “Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you… The Great Spirit protects that man [Washington] and guides his destinies – he will become the chief of nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.” (Mac, p.13)
Washington was never injured in battle.
America, America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm they soul in self control,
Thy liberty in law…
America, America!
May God thy gold refine
Til all success be nobleness
And every gain divine.
-America the Beautiful (1895)
Twenty years later, George Washington fought his old comrades in the British army. As his ragtag band of Continentals faced overwhelming odds against a well trained and disciplined foe, Washington and his army were saved again through divine intervention.
On August 29, 1776, the Americans were falling back as the British attacked their fortifications around New York City. The British and their Hessian allies outnumbered the Americans almost four-to-one. The Americans were low on powder and had their backs to the East River. They expected to a British attack at any moment. They expected to be beaten. They expected to hang.
General Washington ordered his men to “firmly rely on the protection of Divine Providence” saying “God has not brought us this far to desert us.” (Mac, p. 31)
The expected British attack did not come. While he waited, Washington formed a plan. He would evacuate his army across the mile-wide river. The plan entailed a huge risk: if the British heard the sounds of the crossing, Washington’s army would be split.
Just one day before, a regiment of Massachusetts fishermen had arrived to reinforce the Americans. These skilled seamen would move Washington’s army to safety. Throughout the night, the men made repeated trips across the river carrying soldiers, supplies, horses, and cannon.
A Tory woman realized what was happening and sent one of her black servants to warn General Howe, the British commander, that the Americans were escaping. The man successfully reached the British lines with his message, but was stopped by a Hessian sentry who did not speak English. The message did not reach Howe until it was too late.
As morning came, much of the army was still facing the British. Major Benjamin Tallmadge described what happened next: “At this time a very dense fog began to rise out of the ground and off of the river, and it seemed to settle in a peculiar manner over both encampments. I recollect this providential occurrence perfectly well, and so very dense was the atmosphere that I could scarcely discern a man at six-yard distance…. We tarried until the sun had risen, but the fog remained as dense as ever.” (Mac, p. 32)
The fog remained until the last boat, carrying General Washington, had departed. As the fog lifted, the British realized that the Americans had vanished. The first British soldiers to reach the American trenches fired on the last boats, but they were already out of range. The American army survived. A few months later, on Christmas night, they would cross another river, the Delaware, to deliver a stunning defeat to Hessians encamped in Trenton.
Was it random chance that held back the British and allowed a thick fog to cover the battlefield for exactly as long as the Americans needed? General Washington apparently believed that it was no coincidence. Even before the incident, he valued and promoted Christianity in the Continental army. The day after he took command, he issued a general order indicating that he “requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged in actual duty, a punctual attendance of divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven for the means used for our safety and defense.” (Medved, p. 80)
Washington further stated, “ While we are duly performing the duty of good soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of a patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian.”
Let tyrants shake their iron rod
And slav'ry clang her galling chains;
We'll fear them not. We trust in God;
New England's God forever rains.
Howe and Burgoyne and Clinton, too
With Prescott and Cornwallis join'd,
Together plot our overthrow,
In one infernal league combined.
When God inspired us for the fight
Their lines were broke, their lines were forc'd,
Their ships were shelter'd in our sight
Or swiftly driven from our coast.
The foe comes on with haughty stride,
Our troops advance with martial noise.
Their vet'rans flee before our youth
And generals yield to beardless boys.
What grateful offerings shall we bring,
What shall we render to the Lord?
Loud hallelujahs let us sing
And praise his name on every chord.
-Chester (Marching hymn of the Continental army)
As the new nation grew into the shining city on a hill (Matthew 5:14 and 1630 sermon by Puritan John Winthrop), it kept its ideals as a nation devoted to God. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states that “religion, morality and knowledge” are “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind” (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8). Upon approval of the First Amendment to the Constitution, Congress issued a request for the President to “recommend… a day of public thanksgiving and prayer” to acknowledge “the many signal favors of Almighty God…” President Washington responded by declaring November 26, 1789 to be devoted to “the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficient Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be” (Medved, p. 83).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-Declaration of Independence
It is widely accepted that the ideas and philosophies that led the creation of the American republic are rooted in the work of theologian John Calvin. As Calvin’s writings helped throw off the oppression of the Catholic Church in the Reformation, they also led to political freedom. Calvin’s acceptance of capitalism helped to end the feudal system of the Middle Ages and led to the Protestant work ethic. This, in turn, led to the creation of a middle class and the ability of commoners to have a greater voice in government. Calvin’s work was carried on by John Knox. Both theologians influenced the Presbyterians and other Protestants who made up the bulk of the Continental army.
Our fathers' God, to thee,
author of liberty, to thee we sing;
long may our land be bright
with freedom's holy light;
protect us by thy might, great God, our King.
-My Country Tis of Thee (1831)
God and the Bible even helped America through its darkest days so far: the days of slavery and War Between the States. While slavery presented an enormous evil, it was also an evil that was common throughout world history.
It was the Christian religion and the Bible that sowed the seeds of equality, which would one day bring the abolition of slavery, as well as eventual racial equality and integration. Jesus taught that men were equal (Matthew 20:25-28). The Biblical book of Philemon broke new ground by teaching that slave owners should consider their slaves as more than property.
Quakers were among the first to oppose slavery. The abolitionist movement made its largest gains with William Wilberforce, an English Member of Parliament and Christian who was instrumental in banning slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833. In America, John Brown, who saw himself as a prophet, became a martyr for the abolitionist movement. The fearless Harriet Tubman’s faith in God inspired her to lead untold numbers of slaves to freedom.
Many, including Abraham Lincoln, saw the War Between the States as a punishment for the sin of slavery. In his second inaugural speech, Lincoln said, “If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether" (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm).
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.
-God Bless America (1938)
Even after the War Between the States, it took another hundred years for we the people of the United States to fully realize equality between races, sexes, and ethnicities. Along the journey, God and the Bible inspired people such as the Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King, Jr. and countless lesser known Christians to spread the word that God had created all men equal.
At the same time that Americans were confronting their racist demons and after the defeat of fascism, they were also fighting the Cold War against an atheistic enemy. The Soviet Union was attempting to export its communist philosophy around the world. Eastern Europe and China fell to the communists and nations around the world, from Europe to Africa to Asia were threatened. According to the Black Book of Communism, communist regimes were responsible for 94 million deaths. (With communist regimes still active in China, North Korea, and Cuba, the number is still increasing.)
The Cold War was America’s longest war. In the end, America was victorious as the Soviet Union disintegrated and oppressed people around the world stood up to take back their freedom. In another example of divine timing, President Franklin Roosevelt removed Vice President Henry A. Wallace from the Democratic ticket in 1944 and replaced him with Harry S Truman.
Harry Truman became Vice President on January 20, 1945 and president a few months later when FDR died on April 12. Wallace was a communist sympathizer (like many New Dealers). If he had become president, he would not have resisted the communist onslaught. In contrast, Harry Truman helped preserve Western Europe and South Korea as well as playing a role in the establishment of the nation of Israel. If Truman had not become president, the world would be a very different place and the toll of communism would have been much higher.
In contrast to other national powers throughout history, America is not an imperialist power. Where other nations have fought and conquered to add to their empires, America fights and conquers, as Woodrow Wilson put it, to make the world “safe for democracy” and the principle that “peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.” The conquests of America are today seen as beacons of democracy, stability, and prosperity: Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and, in the future, Iraq.
“I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
There have been many other instances of what our Founders referred to as “Divine Providence.” The relationship between Americans and God has been close from the earliest days of our nation. God has both blessed us and punished us. Nevertheless, America has remained the “promised land” and the “shining city on the hill.” It is my fervent prayer that the United States of America will remain, as Abraham Lincoln said, “the last, best hope of earth.”
Happy Independence Day and may God continue to bless and protect America
What our founders and leaders had to say about God and the Bible:
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1871
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. “
-John Adams
"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."
- Calvin Coolidge, 1923
“...The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ ”
– Benjamin Franklin
“Were my soul trembling on the wing of eternity, were this hand freezing to death, were my voice choking with the last struggle, I would still, with the last gasp of that voice, implore you to remember the truth: God has given America to be free.”
– Patrick Henry
“The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”
-Alexis de Tocqueville
"I care not if God is on my side. My constant hope and prayer is that I may be found upon God's side."
-Abraham Lincoln
“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.”
– Franklin Roosevelt
“A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.”
-Martin Luther King
“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
– Ronald Reagan
Sources:
Mac, Toby and Tait, Michael, Under God, Bethany House, Minneapolis, MN, 2004.
Medved, Michael, The 10 Big Lies About America, Crown Forum, New York, 2008.
Kennedy, D. James, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1994.
“God’s Hand On America,” Michael Medved Radio Show Podcast, December 25, 2008.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=3694
http://www.answers.com/topic/squanto
http://www.answers.com/topic/pilgrims
http://www.britishbattles.com/braddock.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/george1.html
http://www.britishbattles.com/long-island.htm
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/battlelon_ih.html
http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/song-midis/Chester.htm
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=8
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-calvin
https://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/115756.pdf
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Truman#First_term_.281945.E2.80.931949.29
July 4, 2009
Denver Co
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Problems With Universal Healthcare
In recent years, there has been a strong push for a universal healthcare plan in the United States. Many would like this reformed healthcare system to emulate the European national health plans. People across the country see that our healthcare system is in crisis, with millions of people who are uninsured and prices that are skyrocketing.
The American healthcare crisis is actually one of affordability rather than access to healthcare. There are very few people who cannot find healthcare; the problem is that many people cannot afford the healthcare that is available. This is true even though laws require hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.
A common myth is that universal government healthcare would be free or cost less than private healthcare. This belief violates several economic principles. First, the money to pay for health professionals, medicines, and facilities has to come from somewhere. If consumers don’t pay for these services directly, they will pay indirectly through higher taxes. Second, as the perceived price decreases, demand will increase. In other words, when people believe that they won’t have to pay for their healthcare, they will use more health services.
As demand increases to exceed the available supply of health services, the government will have to take action. The government will have to limit the amount of services to keep the cost of the healthcare system from exploding. There are several ways to do this. First, they might impose rationing and limit the availability of services. A second option would be increase the amount that patients pay for their healthcare. This could be similar to the health insurance premiums and co-payments that many health insurance policies contain now. A third option would be for the government to do nothing and simply allow shortages to build in the system.
A third problem is that government healthcare will likely create a shortage of healthcare professionals. The government will undoubtedly attempt to rein in costs by imposing price controls. It has already followed this strategy in government healthcare programs that have already been enacted such as Medicare. Medical training, especially for doctors, is a long and expensive process. The motivating factor for many doctors is the financial reward at the end of the process. When the government removes the financial incentive for becoming a doctor, fewer people will choose to become doctors and shortages will result. This is especially likely due the increasing need for doctors in the United States and the Baby Boom generation ages.
These problems can be seen in national healthcare plans around the world. Even highly touted plans such as those in Britain and Canada commonly have long wait times for care that is easily available in the United States. Last year it was revealed that government bureaucrats in England had attempted to solve the problem of long emergency room waits by keeping thousands of patients, some critically ill, in ambulances for as long as five hours before moving them to the emergency room waiting list. This, in turn, meant that the ambulances were not available to help other sick or injured people. It should not be surprising that many Europeans and Canadians who can afford it travel to the United States for health care rather than waiting in line for “free” care at home.
The problems are not just in other countries. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a state healthcare plan. Former Governor Mitt Romney touted the legislation in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. More recently, the state has begun to experience many of the same problems plaguing nations with socialized healthcare.
Recent statistics show that visits to emergency rooms in Massachusetts have increased since the health reform went into effect. The percentage of uninsured patients in ERs has not changed (in spite of laws making health insurance mandatory), while the percentage of more affluent patients, who in the past got care at a doctor’s office, has increased.
Similarly, the dramatic increase in the numbers of people seeking care has made it difficult for many patients to see a primary care doctor. This is compounded by the fact that doctors are allotted a certain amount of time that they are paid for with each patient. If they exceed this time, they are not compensated for the extra work.
The Massachusetts government had hoped that the legislation would encourage more employers to provide health insurance for their employees. Instead, the newly insured people of Massachusetts are primarily involved in state paid or subsidized programs. 16% have their health insurance paid by the state through Mass Health, while 41% are enrolled in the subsidized Commonwealth Care. In all, about three-fifths of Massachusetts residents receive free or subsidized health insurance. Approximately 5% of the people of Massachusetts remain uninsured.
The high number of people receiving government assistance for their health insurance has led to rapidly increasing costs for the state. The cost of Massachusetts’ plan has increased by a staggering 42% since 2006. In order to control costs, current Governor Deval Patrick is considering price controls, limits coverage, more exclusions, and an overall spending cap.
The federal government already faces similar problems with Medicare. Medicare is an unfunded liability that poses huge problems for our budget over the next few years. Medicare will soon begin paying out more money than it takes in and will be bankrupt by 2019 unless changes are made to increase Medicare taxes, cut benefits, or some combination of both.
Some countries in Europe may go a step further by limiting the treatment available for the elderly, terminally ill, and infants. The amount of return in the form of tax revenue from these patients is limited, so the government health bureaucracy doesn’t want to spend resources on expensive cures and treatments. In Holland, euthanasia is already common, both for the elderly and for infants with health problems, sometimes without parental consent.
The best way to solve the healthcare crisis in the US is to reintroduce competition. Most Americans are locked into employer health plans with specified co-payments. Because there is no choice of coverage and no price difference between doctors, there is no incentive to shop around for a better deal. Most people don’t even know how much their doctor visits cost beyond the co-payment or deductible.
Employer paid health insurance should be eliminated in favor of health savings accounts (HSAs). Consumers should contribute money to their account and use it to pay for care. If money is not spent, it should stay in the account, earning interest, until needed or until the consumer meets the requirements to withdraw it for other purposes. This would encourage people to shop for a good and inexpensive doctor, and also discourage frivolous claims.
Similarly, state governments should resist the temptation to make health insurance all things for all people. When laws mandate coverage for things that not all people want, it drives the costs up for everyone. For example, not all people want or need coverage pregnancy, sex changes, chiropractors, or “recreational” drugs such as Viagra. People should be allowed to buy simple and cheap major medical policies for no-frills coverage. If such a policy is not available in all states, people should be allowed to cross state lines to purchase it.
Some of the best advances in affordable coverage in recent years have come from the private sector. For example, Wal-mart introduced $4 generic prescriptions and was followed by several other chains. Now consumers can get prescription antibiotics totally free at Publix. Similarly, some stores now offer on-site clinics staffed by nurses for minor healthcare.
Universal government healthcare has been tried around the world and has typically not worked well. If it is enacted in the United States, we can expect to move from our private health system to one that has the efficiency of the DMV, the cost of the Department of Defense, and the bedside manner of the IRS. Is this the change that most Americans are looking for?
Sign the petition to keep the government from controlling our healthcare at:
http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515332/A-E-patients-left-ambulances-FIVE-hours-trusts-meet-government-targets.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/04/24/as-insurance-coverage-increases-ers-get-busier/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97620520
http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/1021/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811121310853037.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120373015283387491.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html
http://www.discovery.org/a/2478
Originally posted April 2009
The American healthcare crisis is actually one of affordability rather than access to healthcare. There are very few people who cannot find healthcare; the problem is that many people cannot afford the healthcare that is available. This is true even though laws require hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.
A common myth is that universal government healthcare would be free or cost less than private healthcare. This belief violates several economic principles. First, the money to pay for health professionals, medicines, and facilities has to come from somewhere. If consumers don’t pay for these services directly, they will pay indirectly through higher taxes. Second, as the perceived price decreases, demand will increase. In other words, when people believe that they won’t have to pay for their healthcare, they will use more health services.
As demand increases to exceed the available supply of health services, the government will have to take action. The government will have to limit the amount of services to keep the cost of the healthcare system from exploding. There are several ways to do this. First, they might impose rationing and limit the availability of services. A second option would be increase the amount that patients pay for their healthcare. This could be similar to the health insurance premiums and co-payments that many health insurance policies contain now. A third option would be for the government to do nothing and simply allow shortages to build in the system.
A third problem is that government healthcare will likely create a shortage of healthcare professionals. The government will undoubtedly attempt to rein in costs by imposing price controls. It has already followed this strategy in government healthcare programs that have already been enacted such as Medicare. Medical training, especially for doctors, is a long and expensive process. The motivating factor for many doctors is the financial reward at the end of the process. When the government removes the financial incentive for becoming a doctor, fewer people will choose to become doctors and shortages will result. This is especially likely due the increasing need for doctors in the United States and the Baby Boom generation ages.
These problems can be seen in national healthcare plans around the world. Even highly touted plans such as those in Britain and Canada commonly have long wait times for care that is easily available in the United States. Last year it was revealed that government bureaucrats in England had attempted to solve the problem of long emergency room waits by keeping thousands of patients, some critically ill, in ambulances for as long as five hours before moving them to the emergency room waiting list. This, in turn, meant that the ambulances were not available to help other sick or injured people. It should not be surprising that many Europeans and Canadians who can afford it travel to the United States for health care rather than waiting in line for “free” care at home.
The problems are not just in other countries. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a state healthcare plan. Former Governor Mitt Romney touted the legislation in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. More recently, the state has begun to experience many of the same problems plaguing nations with socialized healthcare.
Recent statistics show that visits to emergency rooms in Massachusetts have increased since the health reform went into effect. The percentage of uninsured patients in ERs has not changed (in spite of laws making health insurance mandatory), while the percentage of more affluent patients, who in the past got care at a doctor’s office, has increased.
Similarly, the dramatic increase in the numbers of people seeking care has made it difficult for many patients to see a primary care doctor. This is compounded by the fact that doctors are allotted a certain amount of time that they are paid for with each patient. If they exceed this time, they are not compensated for the extra work.
The Massachusetts government had hoped that the legislation would encourage more employers to provide health insurance for their employees. Instead, the newly insured people of Massachusetts are primarily involved in state paid or subsidized programs. 16% have their health insurance paid by the state through Mass Health, while 41% are enrolled in the subsidized Commonwealth Care. In all, about three-fifths of Massachusetts residents receive free or subsidized health insurance. Approximately 5% of the people of Massachusetts remain uninsured.
The high number of people receiving government assistance for their health insurance has led to rapidly increasing costs for the state. The cost of Massachusetts’ plan has increased by a staggering 42% since 2006. In order to control costs, current Governor Deval Patrick is considering price controls, limits coverage, more exclusions, and an overall spending cap.
The federal government already faces similar problems with Medicare. Medicare is an unfunded liability that poses huge problems for our budget over the next few years. Medicare will soon begin paying out more money than it takes in and will be bankrupt by 2019 unless changes are made to increase Medicare taxes, cut benefits, or some combination of both.
Some countries in Europe may go a step further by limiting the treatment available for the elderly, terminally ill, and infants. The amount of return in the form of tax revenue from these patients is limited, so the government health bureaucracy doesn’t want to spend resources on expensive cures and treatments. In Holland, euthanasia is already common, both for the elderly and for infants with health problems, sometimes without parental consent.
The best way to solve the healthcare crisis in the US is to reintroduce competition. Most Americans are locked into employer health plans with specified co-payments. Because there is no choice of coverage and no price difference between doctors, there is no incentive to shop around for a better deal. Most people don’t even know how much their doctor visits cost beyond the co-payment or deductible.
Employer paid health insurance should be eliminated in favor of health savings accounts (HSAs). Consumers should contribute money to their account and use it to pay for care. If money is not spent, it should stay in the account, earning interest, until needed or until the consumer meets the requirements to withdraw it for other purposes. This would encourage people to shop for a good and inexpensive doctor, and also discourage frivolous claims.
Similarly, state governments should resist the temptation to make health insurance all things for all people. When laws mandate coverage for things that not all people want, it drives the costs up for everyone. For example, not all people want or need coverage pregnancy, sex changes, chiropractors, or “recreational” drugs such as Viagra. People should be allowed to buy simple and cheap major medical policies for no-frills coverage. If such a policy is not available in all states, people should be allowed to cross state lines to purchase it.
Some of the best advances in affordable coverage in recent years have come from the private sector. For example, Wal-mart introduced $4 generic prescriptions and was followed by several other chains. Now consumers can get prescription antibiotics totally free at Publix. Similarly, some stores now offer on-site clinics staffed by nurses for minor healthcare.
Universal government healthcare has been tried around the world and has typically not worked well. If it is enacted in the United States, we can expect to move from our private health system to one that has the efficiency of the DMV, the cost of the Department of Defense, and the bedside manner of the IRS. Is this the change that most Americans are looking for?
Sign the petition to keep the government from controlling our healthcare at:
http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515332/A-E-patients-left-ambulances-FIVE-hours-trusts-meet-government-targets.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/04/24/as-insurance-coverage-increases-ers-get-busier/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97620520
http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/1021/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811121310853037.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120373015283387491.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html
http://www.discovery.org/a/2478
Originally posted April 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sex, Lies, and Gov. Sanford
The news media is abuzz with the revelation of South Carolina Governor Mark Stanford’s infidelity. In case you hadn’t heard, the governor spent Father’s Day weekend in Buenos Aires, Argentina with his girlfriend. The cat was let out of the bag when his staff was unable to contact him for several days and something akin to a panic ensued. Upon his return, he admitted the affair. The episode presumably ends any presidential aspirations that Gov. Sanford may have had.
When a Republican finds himself in a sex scandal, there is always a much bigger to-do than when a Democrat is in similar trouble. Compare the media treatment of Senators Larry Craig (the airport bathroom), David Vitter (DC prostitutes), and Rep. Mark Foley (texting to underage male pages) with Democrats like John Edwards (whose affair the press did not report on until after the presidential campaign when the National Enquirer broke the story) and Bill Clinton (Monica-gate). It seems that the press always gives the Republicans much more scrutiny.
This rule doesn’t apply just to sex scandals. It also applies to financial misconduct. Compare the coverage of Rep. Tom Delay and Senator Ted Stevens (accused of misconduct with lobbyists) to that of William Jefferson (caught red-handed with thousands of dollars of cold, hard cash in his freezer). The Jefferson story was all but ignored. The press also looks the other way on corruption stories regarding Democrats Chris Dodd, Diane Feinstein, Tom Murtha, and Charles Schumer (among others). After the one-sided coverage in favor of Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, there can be no doubt that most media outlets are strongly biased toward the Democrats.
Whether sexual or otherwise, the media minimizes and ignores Democratic scandals while playing up Republican ones. In many cases, this is appropriate. The difference is that, rightly or wrongly, Republicans are perceived as being the party of family and religious values, personal responsibility, and integrity. Republican politicians are only too happy to accept the votes and support that this perception brings, while failing to live up to their own standards in both national financial responsibility as well as their personal morality.
On the other hand, Democrats seldom make such claims. To the contrary, much of the Democratic platform is geared toward preventing people from being accountable for their actions. If someone is sexually irresponsible, the Democrats believe that they have a right to abort their “mistake.” If someone is financially irresponsible, the Democrats believe that they are entitled to a government bailout. This is equally true for corporations and individuals. Instead of holding criminals responsible for their actions, the Democrats blame the gun they used or the environment in which they live.
After a scandal breaks, morally responsible Republicans should own up to their mistakes. Contrary to media beliefs, no one ever said that Republicans, conservatives, Christians or anyone else was incapable of making mistakes. We are all human and all humans sin (Romans 3:23). We should not attempt to hold anyone to an impossibly high standard.
Whether a Republican deserves support after a scandal depends on the circumstances. We should not categorically support all Republicans regardless of their actions just because they are not Democrats. Neither should we abandon all Republicans at the first hint of scandal. In Ted Stevens' case, the charges against him were thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct, but only after he lost his senate seat to a Democratic challenger.
There are several factors to consider. First, is whether the actions were intentional or not. Even if the actions were unintentional, they may have been the result of gross negligence or carelessness. We should also consider whether the scandalous actions were illegal and, if so, to what level. If the person is found guilty of a felony, then he should be removed from office in most cases. A misdemeanor or something less might not require this. Finally, but not least, we must consider whether the person’s actions affect their ability to fulfill their duties. If so, then they should not be supported. (It is worthy to note that Bill Clinton committed perjury and was found guilty and impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate did not remove him from office. Throughout the process, he continued to receive high levels of support from Democrats and the votes were largely along party lines.)
Conservatives and Republicans are right to be held to a higher standard. Public officials who are charged with writing, interpreting, and enforcing laws should be held to a higher standard than the general public. Republicans and conservatives who are Christian should meet an even higher standard: The standard of WWJD – What Would Jesus Do? As Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, this means avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, sexual or otherwise.
If more Republicans took Paul’s advice, there would undoubtedly be fewer Republicans in trouble and the Republican Party would be considered much more trustworthy by the electorate. Recently polling indicates that conservatives make the largest ideological group in the US. 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative (versus 35% moderate and 21% liberal) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx). The problem is that 39% of Americans consider themselves Democrats and only 32% consider themselves Republicans (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends). A significant number of conservatives actually consider themselves Democrats! By continually violating their own core beliefs, Republicans have alienated voters.
So when the media attacks a Republican or conservative for making a moral mistake, don’t get angry. This is as it should be. Don’t rush to abandon them at the first sign of trouble either. Wait for the facts and don’t believe every negative thing you hear. Shockingly, the media has been known to rush stories critical of Republicans even when they are short on facts (Dan Rather’s story about George W. Bush’s National Guard service that was based on fraudulent documents).
Republicans and conservatives should be beacons of integrity that not only highlight the difference between Republicans and Democrats, but also Christians and nonbelievers. When Republicans stop being hypocrites, then maybe they will win back the public trust.
Save the criticisms of media bias for issues that don’t deal with morality. We should continue to work for a level playing field when the media deals with policy matters and facts.
Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
Villa Rica GA
June 25, 2009
When a Republican finds himself in a sex scandal, there is always a much bigger to-do than when a Democrat is in similar trouble. Compare the media treatment of Senators Larry Craig (the airport bathroom), David Vitter (DC prostitutes), and Rep. Mark Foley (texting to underage male pages) with Democrats like John Edwards (whose affair the press did not report on until after the presidential campaign when the National Enquirer broke the story) and Bill Clinton (Monica-gate). It seems that the press always gives the Republicans much more scrutiny.
This rule doesn’t apply just to sex scandals. It also applies to financial misconduct. Compare the coverage of Rep. Tom Delay and Senator Ted Stevens (accused of misconduct with lobbyists) to that of William Jefferson (caught red-handed with thousands of dollars of cold, hard cash in his freezer). The Jefferson story was all but ignored. The press also looks the other way on corruption stories regarding Democrats Chris Dodd, Diane Feinstein, Tom Murtha, and Charles Schumer (among others). After the one-sided coverage in favor of Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, there can be no doubt that most media outlets are strongly biased toward the Democrats.
Whether sexual or otherwise, the media minimizes and ignores Democratic scandals while playing up Republican ones. In many cases, this is appropriate. The difference is that, rightly or wrongly, Republicans are perceived as being the party of family and religious values, personal responsibility, and integrity. Republican politicians are only too happy to accept the votes and support that this perception brings, while failing to live up to their own standards in both national financial responsibility as well as their personal morality.
On the other hand, Democrats seldom make such claims. To the contrary, much of the Democratic platform is geared toward preventing people from being accountable for their actions. If someone is sexually irresponsible, the Democrats believe that they have a right to abort their “mistake.” If someone is financially irresponsible, the Democrats believe that they are entitled to a government bailout. This is equally true for corporations and individuals. Instead of holding criminals responsible for their actions, the Democrats blame the gun they used or the environment in which they live.
After a scandal breaks, morally responsible Republicans should own up to their mistakes. Contrary to media beliefs, no one ever said that Republicans, conservatives, Christians or anyone else was incapable of making mistakes. We are all human and all humans sin (Romans 3:23). We should not attempt to hold anyone to an impossibly high standard.
Whether a Republican deserves support after a scandal depends on the circumstances. We should not categorically support all Republicans regardless of their actions just because they are not Democrats. Neither should we abandon all Republicans at the first hint of scandal. In Ted Stevens' case, the charges against him were thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct, but only after he lost his senate seat to a Democratic challenger.
There are several factors to consider. First, is whether the actions were intentional or not. Even if the actions were unintentional, they may have been the result of gross negligence or carelessness. We should also consider whether the scandalous actions were illegal and, if so, to what level. If the person is found guilty of a felony, then he should be removed from office in most cases. A misdemeanor or something less might not require this. Finally, but not least, we must consider whether the person’s actions affect their ability to fulfill their duties. If so, then they should not be supported. (It is worthy to note that Bill Clinton committed perjury and was found guilty and impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate did not remove him from office. Throughout the process, he continued to receive high levels of support from Democrats and the votes were largely along party lines.)
Conservatives and Republicans are right to be held to a higher standard. Public officials who are charged with writing, interpreting, and enforcing laws should be held to a higher standard than the general public. Republicans and conservatives who are Christian should meet an even higher standard: The standard of WWJD – What Would Jesus Do? As Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, this means avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, sexual or otherwise.
If more Republicans took Paul’s advice, there would undoubtedly be fewer Republicans in trouble and the Republican Party would be considered much more trustworthy by the electorate. Recently polling indicates that conservatives make the largest ideological group in the US. 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative (versus 35% moderate and 21% liberal) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx). The problem is that 39% of Americans consider themselves Democrats and only 32% consider themselves Republicans (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends). A significant number of conservatives actually consider themselves Democrats! By continually violating their own core beliefs, Republicans have alienated voters.
So when the media attacks a Republican or conservative for making a moral mistake, don’t get angry. This is as it should be. Don’t rush to abandon them at the first sign of trouble either. Wait for the facts and don’t believe every negative thing you hear. Shockingly, the media has been known to rush stories critical of Republicans even when they are short on facts (Dan Rather’s story about George W. Bush’s National Guard service that was based on fraudulent documents).
Republicans and conservatives should be beacons of integrity that not only highlight the difference between Republicans and Democrats, but also Christians and nonbelievers. When Republicans stop being hypocrites, then maybe they will win back the public trust.
Save the criticisms of media bias for issues that don’t deal with morality. We should continue to work for a level playing field when the media deals with policy matters and facts.
Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
Villa Rica GA
June 25, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Inside the Revolution by Joel C. Rosenberg
Inside the Revolution is Joel C. Rosenberg’s second nonfiction book. Rosenberg got his start in literature as a novelist. His series of political thrillers began with The Last Jihad and seemed to foretell real events that happened shortly after they were published.
Rosenberg’s first foray into nonfiction was with Epicenter: How the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Affect Your Future. This book, written in 2006 and updated in 2008, detailed Rosenberg’s worldview and explained how his novels became so eerily prescient. Among the predictions in Epicenter were his beliefs that Iraq would become a stable country, that Vladimir Putin would hold onto power in Russia, and that Iran would form a military alliance with Russia.
Rosenberg’s new nonfiction book, Inside the Revolution, is divided into three parts. Since the Six Day War in 1967, Muslims have been soul searching regarding their inability to defeat Israel with vastly superior forces. The results have led many to more virulent forms of radical Islam, while others have chosen the path of peace and reform. A surprising number have even converted to Christianity in a largely unreported religious revival sweeping the Middle East.
The first section, the Radicals, is the reason that many people will buy the book. This section includes a history of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution in Iran as well as a look at Osama bin Laden’s personal history. It also contains a close look at the life and beliefs of current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The section contains many quotes from radical leaders that dispel the notion that Iran’s leaders seek nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It also features interviews with prominent figures in US intelligence such as former CIA Director Porter Goss and former Delta Force commander Jerry Boykin. Presumably, radical Islamic leaders declined to be interviewed.
Along the way, Rosenberg points out that much of what US intelligence believed about Muslims has been wrong over the years. These intelligence failures include the failures to predict the Iranian Revolution, the Pakistani nuclear weapon, the September 11 attacks, and the now famous intelligence failures regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
The section on radicals also includes a discussion of the end-times beliefs of President Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. These men subscribe to a Shia belief in the Twelfth Imam. This religious leader disappeared around AD 900. Members of the Twelver sect of Shia Islam believe that this leader, the Mahdi, will return during a time of violence and chaos to usher in a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a confirmed believer in the Mahdi and has said as much in his addresses to the United Nations. Many western observers believe that the Ayatollah used his influence to help Ahmadinejad rise to the presidency from his position as mayor of Tehran, indicating that the Ayatollah shares his beliefs. Ahmadinejad’s words and actions as president of Iran indicate that, as Iran becomes a nuclear power, he intends to confront Israel and the United States in an effort to summon the Mahdi. Rosenberg documents Ahmadinejad’s speeches to confirm these intentions.
The second section of the book is Reformers. This section is devoted to prominent Muslim leaders who are seeking to reform their national governments into a Muslim version of Jeffersonian democracy. The Reformer section includes several profiles of national leaders such as Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, Iraq’s Nouri Al-Maliki and Jalal Talibani, Morrocan King Mohammed VI, and the late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan. Many interviews are included as well.
Rosenberg also discusses the differences in theology of the Reformers from that of the Radicals. Many of the Koranic passages used by the Radicals are interpreted as figurative or out of context by the Reformers.
Rosenberg also points to some areas where the Reformers are making headway against the Radicals. Morocco is probably the best example. King Mohammed VI has taken strong steps to prevent the growth of radical Islam in his country. He does this by making sure that mosques and madrassas are teaching the peaceful version of Islam rather than inciting violence, empowering women, fighting poverty, and reaching out to both east and west. He also reaches out to Christians and members of Morocco’s Jewish community.
Another success is the conversion of several prominent terrorists from jihad to peaceful Islam. Tawfik Hamid, a disciple of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, rejected the violent version of Islam and began preaching the peaceful message of the Koran. Similarly, a former Al Qaeda theologian, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, wrote a fatwa from an Egyptian jail calling for an end to terrorism and the formation of an Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The final section of the book is probably the most intriguing. The section detailing the Revivalists tells the largely unknown story of the Christian awakening sweeping the Moslem world. While Christian missionaries to the Muslims had very little success for hundreds of years, over the past thirty to forty years hundreds of thousands of Muslim men and women have become followers of Christ. In a large percentage of these conversions, supernatural dreams and visions of Jesus played a role in the conversion process.
The Revivalists differ from the Radicals and the Reformers in that they are not seeking political power. The Revivalists are not organized into a party or political group at all. Due to the fact that it is illegal and potentially dangerous to renounce Islam, many new believers are isolated and alone. Additionally, the purpose of the Revivalists is not to threaten the ruling regimes, but to spread the gospel of Christ (although many Islamic rulers find this a threatening act in itself).
Rosenberg interviews prominent Middle Eastern evangelists and converts. Many of their stories are nothing short of miraculous. Two of the stories are especially memorable to me. In one, a woman who heard the Bible verse in which Jesus says “I stand at the door and knock” (Revelation 3:20). Not understanding that His words were figurative, she opened the door to her house to find that Jesus was actually there. In another story, an Iraqi Christian businessman was kidnapped by militants. After a ransom was paid, they shot him in the back of the head. He died and actually saw Jesus before coming back to life and finding help.
The scope of the Christian awakening in the Middle East is not fully known. There is no census of believers and, even if there were, many would not participate due to the danger. It is clear from communications with groups that broadcast via satellite and radio that Muslim converts number in the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions. Rosenberg also cites statements by government officials and religious leaders in Muslim countries that shown concern about the growing numbers of Muslims who renouncing Mohammed in favor of Christ.
Inside the Revolution is an insightful book for anyone interested in the politics of the Middle East, which should be all of us at this point. It provides an in-depth and balanced look at the major players in the politics of the Middle East and is a fascinating read. His previous works show that Rosenberg is a credible and knowledgeable analyst of the Middle East.
Source:
Rosenberg, Joel C. Inside the Revolution: How the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson, and Jesus Are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform the World, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, IL, 2009.
http://www.joelrosenberg.com/
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
Greensboro NC
Rosenberg’s first foray into nonfiction was with Epicenter: How the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Affect Your Future. This book, written in 2006 and updated in 2008, detailed Rosenberg’s worldview and explained how his novels became so eerily prescient. Among the predictions in Epicenter were his beliefs that Iraq would become a stable country, that Vladimir Putin would hold onto power in Russia, and that Iran would form a military alliance with Russia.
Rosenberg’s new nonfiction book, Inside the Revolution, is divided into three parts. Since the Six Day War in 1967, Muslims have been soul searching regarding their inability to defeat Israel with vastly superior forces. The results have led many to more virulent forms of radical Islam, while others have chosen the path of peace and reform. A surprising number have even converted to Christianity in a largely unreported religious revival sweeping the Middle East.
The first section, the Radicals, is the reason that many people will buy the book. This section includes a history of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution in Iran as well as a look at Osama bin Laden’s personal history. It also contains a close look at the life and beliefs of current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The section contains many quotes from radical leaders that dispel the notion that Iran’s leaders seek nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It also features interviews with prominent figures in US intelligence such as former CIA Director Porter Goss and former Delta Force commander Jerry Boykin. Presumably, radical Islamic leaders declined to be interviewed.
Along the way, Rosenberg points out that much of what US intelligence believed about Muslims has been wrong over the years. These intelligence failures include the failures to predict the Iranian Revolution, the Pakistani nuclear weapon, the September 11 attacks, and the now famous intelligence failures regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
The section on radicals also includes a discussion of the end-times beliefs of President Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. These men subscribe to a Shia belief in the Twelfth Imam. This religious leader disappeared around AD 900. Members of the Twelver sect of Shia Islam believe that this leader, the Mahdi, will return during a time of violence and chaos to usher in a worldwide Islamic caliphate.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a confirmed believer in the Mahdi and has said as much in his addresses to the United Nations. Many western observers believe that the Ayatollah used his influence to help Ahmadinejad rise to the presidency from his position as mayor of Tehran, indicating that the Ayatollah shares his beliefs. Ahmadinejad’s words and actions as president of Iran indicate that, as Iran becomes a nuclear power, he intends to confront Israel and the United States in an effort to summon the Mahdi. Rosenberg documents Ahmadinejad’s speeches to confirm these intentions.
The second section of the book is Reformers. This section is devoted to prominent Muslim leaders who are seeking to reform their national governments into a Muslim version of Jeffersonian democracy. The Reformer section includes several profiles of national leaders such as Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, Iraq’s Nouri Al-Maliki and Jalal Talibani, Morrocan King Mohammed VI, and the late Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan. Many interviews are included as well.
Rosenberg also discusses the differences in theology of the Reformers from that of the Radicals. Many of the Koranic passages used by the Radicals are interpreted as figurative or out of context by the Reformers.
Rosenberg also points to some areas where the Reformers are making headway against the Radicals. Morocco is probably the best example. King Mohammed VI has taken strong steps to prevent the growth of radical Islam in his country. He does this by making sure that mosques and madrassas are teaching the peaceful version of Islam rather than inciting violence, empowering women, fighting poverty, and reaching out to both east and west. He also reaches out to Christians and members of Morocco’s Jewish community.
Another success is the conversion of several prominent terrorists from jihad to peaceful Islam. Tawfik Hamid, a disciple of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, rejected the violent version of Islam and began preaching the peaceful message of the Koran. Similarly, a former Al Qaeda theologian, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, wrote a fatwa from an Egyptian jail calling for an end to terrorism and the formation of an Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The final section of the book is probably the most intriguing. The section detailing the Revivalists tells the largely unknown story of the Christian awakening sweeping the Moslem world. While Christian missionaries to the Muslims had very little success for hundreds of years, over the past thirty to forty years hundreds of thousands of Muslim men and women have become followers of Christ. In a large percentage of these conversions, supernatural dreams and visions of Jesus played a role in the conversion process.
The Revivalists differ from the Radicals and the Reformers in that they are not seeking political power. The Revivalists are not organized into a party or political group at all. Due to the fact that it is illegal and potentially dangerous to renounce Islam, many new believers are isolated and alone. Additionally, the purpose of the Revivalists is not to threaten the ruling regimes, but to spread the gospel of Christ (although many Islamic rulers find this a threatening act in itself).
Rosenberg interviews prominent Middle Eastern evangelists and converts. Many of their stories are nothing short of miraculous. Two of the stories are especially memorable to me. In one, a woman who heard the Bible verse in which Jesus says “I stand at the door and knock” (Revelation 3:20). Not understanding that His words were figurative, she opened the door to her house to find that Jesus was actually there. In another story, an Iraqi Christian businessman was kidnapped by militants. After a ransom was paid, they shot him in the back of the head. He died and actually saw Jesus before coming back to life and finding help.
The scope of the Christian awakening in the Middle East is not fully known. There is no census of believers and, even if there were, many would not participate due to the danger. It is clear from communications with groups that broadcast via satellite and radio that Muslim converts number in the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions. Rosenberg also cites statements by government officials and religious leaders in Muslim countries that shown concern about the growing numbers of Muslims who renouncing Mohammed in favor of Christ.
Inside the Revolution is an insightful book for anyone interested in the politics of the Middle East, which should be all of us at this point. It provides an in-depth and balanced look at the major players in the politics of the Middle East and is a fascinating read. His previous works show that Rosenberg is a credible and knowledgeable analyst of the Middle East.
Source:
Rosenberg, Joel C. Inside the Revolution: How the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson, and Jesus Are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform the World, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, IL, 2009.
http://www.joelrosenberg.com/
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
Greensboro NC
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Why They Want to Kill Us
Why We Want to Kill You by Walid Shoebat
Walid Shoebat has a unique perspective on the War on Terror. Shoebat was born a Palestinian Arab under Israeli occupation. He grew up in Islamic schools and mosques, which preached that violence and radicalism were the way to God. He eventually became a terrorist and was tasked with carrying out bombings against Israeli civilians.
Shoebat’s life changed when he visited relatives in the United States. While there, he studied the Bible in order to convert his wife to Islam. Eventually became convinced that Mohammed was not a true prophet of God and that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. He became a Christian and has since worked to help people in the West understand the extent of the danger that we face in radical Islam. His book, Why We Want to Kill You, is an in depth study of the jihadist mindset.
Shoebat points out the differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Islam teaches that people can be saved only by doing good deeds. The problem is that the Muslim never knows exactly where he stands before Allah. He might do his best to please Allah, and then at judgment find that his bad works outweigh his good ones.
One way around this problem is to become a martyr. Muslims are taught that dying for Allah is the highest form of sacrifice. Becoming a martyr will guarantee the Muslim’s entry into Paradise and the reward of sexual pleasure with 72 black-eyed virgins. The martyr can even intercede for sinful members of his family as well.
Muslim parents often encourage their children to become suicide bombers and terrorists, both for spiritual reasons as well as the financial rewards that go along with terrorist martyrdom. Muslim children are taught from an early age that death in the cause of Allah is the highest ideal to which they can aspire. He notes that suicide bombers come from all walks of life, all levels of education, and all levels of wealth. The belief that most suicide bombers are poor and uneducated is false.
Shoebat draws parallels between the suicide bomber in Islam and Christianity. The suicide bomber is referred to as a shahid or “sacrificial lamb.” In this way, he becomes a living sacrifice to Allah on behalf of himself and his family. In contrast, in Christianity, God Himself, through Jesus, became the sacrificial lamb for all who choose to accept Him. In the same way, Jesus Christ intercedes with God on our behalf.
Shoebat also points out that Islam is inherently racist. All who do not believe in Allah are considered inferior kafirs (infidels). Throughout Muslim history, unbelievers have been relegated to second-class status.
When an Islamic empire took control over territory where Christians, Jews or others resided, the people were given a choice. First, they were invited to submit to Islam to obtain the rights of privileges of citizenship in the ummah, the greater Islamic nation. Islam actually means “submission.” If they refused, they were considered dhimmis, second-class citizens, and required to pay a tax called a jizya. Dhimmis are entitled to only limited rights and protection under the law.
This racism is also reflected by the Muslim reaction to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed by Muslim dictators such as Saddam Hussein without facing widespread condemnation from the Islamic community. Similarly, when Islamic suicide bombers blow up Muslim civilians and police in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere, the ummah is silent.
On the contrary, when an unbeliever kills a Muslim, even by accident, the result is often violence and rioting. For example, intifadas (uprisings) have been set off in the occupied territories when Israeli vehicles accidentally hit Arab children. Friendly fire accidents in Iraq and Afghanistan provide more examples. Often, more Muslims are killed as a result of the rioting than in the original incident. There is no consideration of intent. All that seems to matter is whether a Muslim or a kafir is at fault.
Unbelievers do receive preferential treatment over Muslims who renounce their faith. A Muslim has no right to reject Islam. Once someone accepts Islam, they take their life in their hands if they renounce Mohammed and his faith. The official penalty in many Islamic countries for converting from Islam is death. In many other cases, converts are ostracized by their friends and family. In Shoebat’s case, Islamic courts seized his property in Palestine after his conversion.
Further, he points out that the Islamic community is utterly incapable of receiving criticism. Shoebat has been called a racist and Islamophobe for pointing out inconsistencies in Islamic teaching. Few will debate him on principle, instead choosing to question his motives, his sincerity, and even the fact of his upbringing as a Muslim in Palestine.
There are other examples from around the world as well. In the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (religious ruling) calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie after his novel, The Satanic Verses, was deemed to be insulting to Islam. More recently, editorial cartoons in Holland that depicted Mohammed unfavorably set off Islamic rioting around the world in 2005. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after making a documentary critical of Islam in 2004.
Shoebat makes the point that Muslims see themselves as victims and deny any reality that doesn’t fit that image. For example, they point to the Israeli occupation of Arab areas of the Middle East or American occupation of Iraq and use that to justify their terrorism. This ignores the fact that populations that are much more oppressed do not embrace the slaughter of innocent people as a tactic or religious ideal.
Conversely, they also deny that many terrorists are terrorists at all. After suicide bombings, terror attacks, or arrests of terror cells, it is not uncommon for acquaintances of the perpetrators to deny that their friends were capable of such actions. These denials can persist even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Shoebat also dispels the notion that the word jihad (holy war) refers to an internal struggle. In truth, there are several levels of jihad. One level does refer to an internal struggle against evil, but others include varying levels of cultural, political, and military conflict. The United States is the target of a cultural jihad in which Islamic groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) use lawsuits and other forms of pressure to assault areas of American life that are deemed offensive to Muslims.
Shoebat also points out how, throughout Muslim history, it has been acceptable for Muslims to declare a truce when they are at a disadvantage, then to unilaterally end the truce when they are stronger than their opponents. The Arabic term for this type of truce is hudna. This type of deception is allowed by the Koran. In fact, Shoebat points out that one of the many names of Allah is “the Great Deceiver.”
Finally, Shoebat rejects the idea that there is a moderate Islam. All forms of Islam teach that Islam is destined to control the world; the only real differences are in the timing. He does agree that there are moderate Muslims who have been secularized and assimilated into western cultures.
In this politically correct age, many will find Shoebat’s statements unpalatable. Yet his background as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist who had an in-depth knowledge of the Koran and Islam is indisputable. Shoebat backs up his claims with references from the Koran, passages from the hadiths, and Muslim sermons. His view of Islam is one that needs to at least be considered by western leaders. If we discount the reality of Islamic teaching on Muslims around the world, then we leave ourselves open to misunderstanding their motives and reacting incorrectly.
Shoebat has also written a more recent book, God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy, and the Bible. This book analyzes Biblical prophecy in light of present day politics in the Middle East. It promises to be a fascinating read.
In my opinion, Shoebat’s story represents the hope for peace in the Middle East and around the world. In rejecting a religious worldview that demanded the death of its enemies as well as its adherents and embracing a religion that is focused on equality and peace for all, Walid Shoebat and the many other terrorists reformed through Christianity are living examples of how bloodthirsty murderers can find inner change through God. Their example represents the best hope for true and lasting peace.
Sources:
Shoebat, Walid. Why We Want to Kill You: the Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat It. Top Executive Media, 2007.
www.shoebat.com
Villa Rica
Walid Shoebat has a unique perspective on the War on Terror. Shoebat was born a Palestinian Arab under Israeli occupation. He grew up in Islamic schools and mosques, which preached that violence and radicalism were the way to God. He eventually became a terrorist and was tasked with carrying out bombings against Israeli civilians.
Shoebat’s life changed when he visited relatives in the United States. While there, he studied the Bible in order to convert his wife to Islam. Eventually became convinced that Mohammed was not a true prophet of God and that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. He became a Christian and has since worked to help people in the West understand the extent of the danger that we face in radical Islam. His book, Why We Want to Kill You, is an in depth study of the jihadist mindset.
Shoebat points out the differences between Islam and Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Islam teaches that people can be saved only by doing good deeds. The problem is that the Muslim never knows exactly where he stands before Allah. He might do his best to please Allah, and then at judgment find that his bad works outweigh his good ones.
One way around this problem is to become a martyr. Muslims are taught that dying for Allah is the highest form of sacrifice. Becoming a martyr will guarantee the Muslim’s entry into Paradise and the reward of sexual pleasure with 72 black-eyed virgins. The martyr can even intercede for sinful members of his family as well.
Muslim parents often encourage their children to become suicide bombers and terrorists, both for spiritual reasons as well as the financial rewards that go along with terrorist martyrdom. Muslim children are taught from an early age that death in the cause of Allah is the highest ideal to which they can aspire. He notes that suicide bombers come from all walks of life, all levels of education, and all levels of wealth. The belief that most suicide bombers are poor and uneducated is false.
Shoebat draws parallels between the suicide bomber in Islam and Christianity. The suicide bomber is referred to as a shahid or “sacrificial lamb.” In this way, he becomes a living sacrifice to Allah on behalf of himself and his family. In contrast, in Christianity, God Himself, through Jesus, became the sacrificial lamb for all who choose to accept Him. In the same way, Jesus Christ intercedes with God on our behalf.
Shoebat also points out that Islam is inherently racist. All who do not believe in Allah are considered inferior kafirs (infidels). Throughout Muslim history, unbelievers have been relegated to second-class status.
When an Islamic empire took control over territory where Christians, Jews or others resided, the people were given a choice. First, they were invited to submit to Islam to obtain the rights of privileges of citizenship in the ummah, the greater Islamic nation. Islam actually means “submission.” If they refused, they were considered dhimmis, second-class citizens, and required to pay a tax called a jizya. Dhimmis are entitled to only limited rights and protection under the law.
This racism is also reflected by the Muslim reaction to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed by Muslim dictators such as Saddam Hussein without facing widespread condemnation from the Islamic community. Similarly, when Islamic suicide bombers blow up Muslim civilians and police in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere, the ummah is silent.
On the contrary, when an unbeliever kills a Muslim, even by accident, the result is often violence and rioting. For example, intifadas (uprisings) have been set off in the occupied territories when Israeli vehicles accidentally hit Arab children. Friendly fire accidents in Iraq and Afghanistan provide more examples. Often, more Muslims are killed as a result of the rioting than in the original incident. There is no consideration of intent. All that seems to matter is whether a Muslim or a kafir is at fault.
Unbelievers do receive preferential treatment over Muslims who renounce their faith. A Muslim has no right to reject Islam. Once someone accepts Islam, they take their life in their hands if they renounce Mohammed and his faith. The official penalty in many Islamic countries for converting from Islam is death. In many other cases, converts are ostracized by their friends and family. In Shoebat’s case, Islamic courts seized his property in Palestine after his conversion.
Further, he points out that the Islamic community is utterly incapable of receiving criticism. Shoebat has been called a racist and Islamophobe for pointing out inconsistencies in Islamic teaching. Few will debate him on principle, instead choosing to question his motives, his sincerity, and even the fact of his upbringing as a Muslim in Palestine.
There are other examples from around the world as well. In the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (religious ruling) calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie after his novel, The Satanic Verses, was deemed to be insulting to Islam. More recently, editorial cartoons in Holland that depicted Mohammed unfavorably set off Islamic rioting around the world in 2005. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after making a documentary critical of Islam in 2004.
Shoebat makes the point that Muslims see themselves as victims and deny any reality that doesn’t fit that image. For example, they point to the Israeli occupation of Arab areas of the Middle East or American occupation of Iraq and use that to justify their terrorism. This ignores the fact that populations that are much more oppressed do not embrace the slaughter of innocent people as a tactic or religious ideal.
Conversely, they also deny that many terrorists are terrorists at all. After suicide bombings, terror attacks, or arrests of terror cells, it is not uncommon for acquaintances of the perpetrators to deny that their friends were capable of such actions. These denials can persist even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Shoebat also dispels the notion that the word jihad (holy war) refers to an internal struggle. In truth, there are several levels of jihad. One level does refer to an internal struggle against evil, but others include varying levels of cultural, political, and military conflict. The United States is the target of a cultural jihad in which Islamic groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) use lawsuits and other forms of pressure to assault areas of American life that are deemed offensive to Muslims.
Shoebat also points out how, throughout Muslim history, it has been acceptable for Muslims to declare a truce when they are at a disadvantage, then to unilaterally end the truce when they are stronger than their opponents. The Arabic term for this type of truce is hudna. This type of deception is allowed by the Koran. In fact, Shoebat points out that one of the many names of Allah is “the Great Deceiver.”
Finally, Shoebat rejects the idea that there is a moderate Islam. All forms of Islam teach that Islam is destined to control the world; the only real differences are in the timing. He does agree that there are moderate Muslims who have been secularized and assimilated into western cultures.
In this politically correct age, many will find Shoebat’s statements unpalatable. Yet his background as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist who had an in-depth knowledge of the Koran and Islam is indisputable. Shoebat backs up his claims with references from the Koran, passages from the hadiths, and Muslim sermons. His view of Islam is one that needs to at least be considered by western leaders. If we discount the reality of Islamic teaching on Muslims around the world, then we leave ourselves open to misunderstanding their motives and reacting incorrectly.
Shoebat has also written a more recent book, God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy, and the Bible. This book analyzes Biblical prophecy in light of present day politics in the Middle East. It promises to be a fascinating read.
In my opinion, Shoebat’s story represents the hope for peace in the Middle East and around the world. In rejecting a religious worldview that demanded the death of its enemies as well as its adherents and embracing a religion that is focused on equality and peace for all, Walid Shoebat and the many other terrorists reformed through Christianity are living examples of how bloodthirsty murderers can find inner change through God. Their example represents the best hope for true and lasting peace.
Sources:
Shoebat, Walid. Why We Want to Kill You: the Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat It. Top Executive Media, 2007.
www.shoebat.com
Villa Rica
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Judge Sotomayor and the Tyranny of the Minority
President Obama recently nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice David Souter. Barring some shocking revelation, such as unpaid taxes or links to water boarding, Judge Sotomayor will almost undoubtedly be confirmed by the Democratic majority in the senate.
Much as been made of several comments that Judge Sotomayor has made over the years. In one case, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
While even her supporters agree that this was a dumb thing to say and seems to be a racist comment, it is not the most serious strike against her. One racist comment does not a racist make. It may, however, indicate a prejudice against white males.
It is striking however, to note the lack of outrage by the media. The reaction would undoubtedly be very different if a white man made the remark and reversed the roles. In contrast, much of the media coverage has concentrated on Sotomayor’s Hispanic heritage and her life experiences.
More disturbing is a remark that Sotomayor made in 2005 in which she said that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” As most of us learned in our civics and government classes in high school, the job of the courts is to interpret the law, not to make policy. Sotomayor’s job should be to interpret the law and to ensure that it meets the constitutional test.
In all, Judge Sotomayor is an unsurprising pick for President Obama, who promised to pick a nominee that “understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation." In other words, President Obama doesn’t want an impartial justice; he wants to a justice who will sympathize with certain groups.
The problem with the empathy test is that justice in the United States is supposed to be blind. Judges are not supposed to sympathize with either party. A judge’s decision in a legal case should not depend on which party has the bigger sob story. It should depend on the law as it is written.
As one conservative columnist noted, whenever an average American reports for jury duty, they are told by the judge that they must be objective and not allow preconceptions to affect their ability to decide the case. Why, then, is a judge encouraged to show sympathy and disregard the letter of the law? President Obama’s call for empathy flies in the face of objectivity and Judge Sotomayor’s belief that her life experience as a “wise Latina” makes her a better judge than a white male.
When judges interpret the law based on their own prejudices and beliefs instead of the law as it is written, we get results that are diametrically opposed to what the legislators that passed the laws intended. One example is the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes. The fifteenth amendment to the constitution granted equal rights to former slaves, yet the courts held that blacks could be equal, but also kept separate.
Judge Sotomayor’s prejudice can be seen in a 2008 case, Ricci v. DeStafano, in which 19 white firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut. The firefighters had taken an officer’s promotion exam. After minority firefighters scored disproportionately lower on the exam, the city threw out the test.
Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling against the firefighters. The ruling was unsigned. Four months later, the unsigned ruling was replaced with an unsigned opinion, still affirming the lower court’s decision. A colleague of Sotomayor’s on the Appeals Court wrote that the panel “failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal." Currently, the Supreme Court is deliberating on the case and many observers expect that Sotomayor’s ruling will be overturned.
This case should concern anyone who believes in true equality under the law. If the Supreme Court upholds reverse discrimination then none of us are truly equal. Reverse discrimination is just as wrong as the Jim Crow laws of the past. It also provides an example of how a judge’s sympathy for one party in a case can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The second amendment to the constitution reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In spite of the fact that the amendment explicitly says “the right of the people,” many activist judges have held that the right to bear arms applies only to state militias and not individual citizens.
In the case of Judge Sotomayor, she has already endorsed an opinion denying the individual right to bear arms. In the case of Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor agreed with the opinion of the US Court of Appeals that the second amendment did not protect citizens from infringement by state governments.
In 2008, in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment did indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. The most disturbing aspect of this decision is that it was a 5-4 ruling. In spite of the plain language of the amendment, 44% of the justices, all of who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, decided that the “right of the people” does not literally mean people like you and me.
An additional example of judicial overreaching is the commerce clause. The constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign countries. New Deal era decisions by the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “interstate commerce,” literally commerce between states, to mean commerce within a single state in many cases.
As activist judges have read their own desires into the law, there has been an erosion of American freedom. In Kelo v. New London, the Court ruled that individual property rights only go as far as the government’s desire to collect a greater property tax payment. Rulings by activist judges have limited the freedom of religion and outlawed traditional prayers and religious displays on government property. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that abortion could not be prohibited after a right to privacy was discovered in the constitution in spite of the fact that the constitution does not mention privacy. Most state laws permitting gay marriage are also the result of activist judges acting on their own prejudices.
Over the past several decades, leftists have used the court system to win policy victories that were impossible for them to win at the ballot box. Judges, most of whom are appointed rather than elected, are not accountable to the people for their decisions as other public officials are. There are many cases of judges acting contrary to, not only the will of the people, but also the Constitution. Because they are not elected, there is very little recourse against their decisions. This is the tyranny of the minority.
By all accounts, Judge Sotomayor is a nice person, but unless she can fully answer disturbing questions about her record and her judicial philosophy, she does not deserve to be a Supreme Court Justice. Most likely, however, she will be confirmed and take a lifetime seat on our highest court. As a result, law-abiding citizens will be less certain of receiving the full legal rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution.
Sources:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/sotomayors_wise_latina_line_ma.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090527/pl_cq_politics/politics3126035
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/1164--judge-sonia-sotomayors-shadowy-thinking
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/02/nation/na-court-souter2
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause
Charlotte NC
Much as been made of several comments that Judge Sotomayor has made over the years. In one case, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
While even her supporters agree that this was a dumb thing to say and seems to be a racist comment, it is not the most serious strike against her. One racist comment does not a racist make. It may, however, indicate a prejudice against white males.
It is striking however, to note the lack of outrage by the media. The reaction would undoubtedly be very different if a white man made the remark and reversed the roles. In contrast, much of the media coverage has concentrated on Sotomayor’s Hispanic heritage and her life experiences.
More disturbing is a remark that Sotomayor made in 2005 in which she said that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” As most of us learned in our civics and government classes in high school, the job of the courts is to interpret the law, not to make policy. Sotomayor’s job should be to interpret the law and to ensure that it meets the constitutional test.
In all, Judge Sotomayor is an unsurprising pick for President Obama, who promised to pick a nominee that “understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation." In other words, President Obama doesn’t want an impartial justice; he wants to a justice who will sympathize with certain groups.
The problem with the empathy test is that justice in the United States is supposed to be blind. Judges are not supposed to sympathize with either party. A judge’s decision in a legal case should not depend on which party has the bigger sob story. It should depend on the law as it is written.
As one conservative columnist noted, whenever an average American reports for jury duty, they are told by the judge that they must be objective and not allow preconceptions to affect their ability to decide the case. Why, then, is a judge encouraged to show sympathy and disregard the letter of the law? President Obama’s call for empathy flies in the face of objectivity and Judge Sotomayor’s belief that her life experience as a “wise Latina” makes her a better judge than a white male.
When judges interpret the law based on their own prejudices and beliefs instead of the law as it is written, we get results that are diametrically opposed to what the legislators that passed the laws intended. One example is the Jim Crow laws and Black Codes. The fifteenth amendment to the constitution granted equal rights to former slaves, yet the courts held that blacks could be equal, but also kept separate.
Judge Sotomayor’s prejudice can be seen in a 2008 case, Ricci v. DeStafano, in which 19 white firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut. The firefighters had taken an officer’s promotion exam. After minority firefighters scored disproportionately lower on the exam, the city threw out the test.
Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling against the firefighters. The ruling was unsigned. Four months later, the unsigned ruling was replaced with an unsigned opinion, still affirming the lower court’s decision. A colleague of Sotomayor’s on the Appeals Court wrote that the panel “failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal." Currently, the Supreme Court is deliberating on the case and many observers expect that Sotomayor’s ruling will be overturned.
This case should concern anyone who believes in true equality under the law. If the Supreme Court upholds reverse discrimination then none of us are truly equal. Reverse discrimination is just as wrong as the Jim Crow laws of the past. It also provides an example of how a judge’s sympathy for one party in a case can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The second amendment to the constitution reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In spite of the fact that the amendment explicitly says “the right of the people,” many activist judges have held that the right to bear arms applies only to state militias and not individual citizens.
In the case of Judge Sotomayor, she has already endorsed an opinion denying the individual right to bear arms. In the case of Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor agreed with the opinion of the US Court of Appeals that the second amendment did not protect citizens from infringement by state governments.
In 2008, in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment did indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. The most disturbing aspect of this decision is that it was a 5-4 ruling. In spite of the plain language of the amendment, 44% of the justices, all of who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, decided that the “right of the people” does not literally mean people like you and me.
An additional example of judicial overreaching is the commerce clause. The constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign countries. New Deal era decisions by the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “interstate commerce,” literally commerce between states, to mean commerce within a single state in many cases.
As activist judges have read their own desires into the law, there has been an erosion of American freedom. In Kelo v. New London, the Court ruled that individual property rights only go as far as the government’s desire to collect a greater property tax payment. Rulings by activist judges have limited the freedom of religion and outlawed traditional prayers and religious displays on government property. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that abortion could not be prohibited after a right to privacy was discovered in the constitution in spite of the fact that the constitution does not mention privacy. Most state laws permitting gay marriage are also the result of activist judges acting on their own prejudices.
Over the past several decades, leftists have used the court system to win policy victories that were impossible for them to win at the ballot box. Judges, most of whom are appointed rather than elected, are not accountable to the people for their decisions as other public officials are. There are many cases of judges acting contrary to, not only the will of the people, but also the Constitution. Because they are not elected, there is very little recourse against their decisions. This is the tyranny of the minority.
By all accounts, Judge Sotomayor is a nice person, but unless she can fully answer disturbing questions about her record and her judicial philosophy, she does not deserve to be a Supreme Court Justice. Most likely, however, she will be confirmed and take a lifetime seat on our highest court. As a result, law-abiding citizens will be less certain of receiving the full legal rights to which they are entitled under the Constitution.
Sources:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/sotomayors_wise_latina_line_ma.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090527/pl_cq_politics/politics3126035
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/1164--judge-sonia-sotomayors-shadowy-thinking
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/02/nation/na-court-souter2
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause
Charlotte NC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)