Thanks Obamacare!

I am having to do something that I have never had to do before... I am having to shop for health insurance. Since I have been an adult... and worked actual jobs... I have not had to do any shopping for health insurance.

But now, and I am convinced that it has to do with Obamacare, my insurance rates are skyrocketing and my employer is dropping coverage for family health coverage.

Now I am forced to consider HealthCare.Gov for my insurance needs. I am grateful for the option, but I am annoyed that I am now forced to need it.

Free Audio Book from Christian Audio

Every month Christian Audio has a free download for the month.  There have been several really good ones that I have downloaded over the past couple of years.  The free book for October 2012 is extremely timely though, so I would like to point all of you there.

The book?  How Should Christians Vote by Tony Evans.

I've always enjoyed Tony Evans on the radio.  I've never read anything that he has written, but he has always seemed quite sound in his teaching.  I haven't listened to this book yet, but I am willing to give it a try.

If you download this book, let me know what you think.  I am currently listening to another one, so I probaly won't get to this one for another week or so.

Atrocious

John Calvin, commenting on Exodus 21:22-25:

The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being (homo), and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.

[HT: Kevin DeYoung]

For me, abortion is not a political issue.  It is a life or death issue.  It is also a personal issue.  I can't agree with John Calvin more.

Read Also:
Three
Moral Vote
Four
Decisions Made in a Pickup Truck
15 Pro-Life Truths to Speak (by John Piper)

Electoral Bumpkins

John Calvin on Elections:

When elections have to be made, just as today the governors have to be elected, and tomorrow and the day after and throughout the week the estates of this city and the judicial order have to be provided for, how many are there who think of God when they undertake this, which is such a religious thing?   

The most solemn of all the elections is due now -- but those who will come to it, where are they, most of them?  I met some of my bumpkins (I could easily point them out by name,  but there is no need, for we all know them well enough); some of them were going up to the Bourg de four, and others were coming this way.  They thought they would have no time for breakfast unless they chose service time.  I saw this with my own eyes as I was coming to church.  And is it not a crying shame?   

So when it is plain that we who ought to be well learned in the Word of God, seeing it is preached to us intimately every day, are still so stupid -- more, that we have such a spirit of brutishness in us -- is not this a great shame? 

Now then, let us consider that we are not told without good reason that, when we are going to elect men to some public position, we must set about it reverently and carefully.  For we shall provoke God's anger if we pollute the seat of justice, putting men in it who have neither zeal nor interest to honor and serve it... we must learn, (if we do not want to spoil everything) to do better than we have done so far, to be really serious and take care when elections have to be made, so that God may reign among us and that He may bring it to pass that all are governed by His Holy Spirit and that they may have zeal and love for His Word.

From Portrait of Calvin by T.H.L. Parker.  You can also find this book on the Desiring God website for free.

Occupy Wall Street is Divided!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[HT: Mark Driscoll]

worth every penny

click to enlarge

A friend of mine forwarded this picture to me the other day.  Usually when I get forwards, I give a little chuckle, then archive the message.  I felt this one deserved to be passed along.  I don't know who to give credit to for the image, but here is the caption from the e-mail:

House Minority Leader  Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a  new budget. (AP) 

The guy sitting in the row in front of these two....he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.  

These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1. Should we buy them larger screen computers - or - a ticket home, permanently?  

This is one of their 3-DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for their salary, which is about $179,000 per year. 

I don't want to be overly critical, most of us have played solitaire in a meeting before... but c'mon!  At least be discreet about it.

What if Arizona were Quebec?

Here is an interesting perspective from the American Thinker (with an article by Michael Filozof):

Suppose for a moment that 15 million Americans -- the population of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined -- sneaked across the border into Quebec. Suppose that these illegal immigrants refused to learn to speak French, that they applied for Canadian welfare, that they reproduced at a rate higher than Quebec's residents, and that they bankrupted Canada's socialized medical system. Suppose that they sent their children to Canadian schools in such large numbers that Quebec's school system had to teach "French as a Second Language" courses.

Suppose that the 15 million illegal American aliens included large numbers of criminals, drug dealers from Vermont, and arms traffickers, causing Quebec's crime rate to soar; that they comprised 20% to 30% of Quebec's prison inmates; and that they routinely evaded capture by Canadian authorities by sneaking back across the border, where they engaged in gang warfare.

Suppose that the illegal Americans congregated in packs on Montreal street corners, looking for day labor for which they did not pay taxes, and drove through the streets of Quebec without driver's licenses or motor vehicle insurance. Suppose that the illegals marched openly in the streets of Montreal, waving the Stars and Stripes, celebrating the Fourth of July, and demanding amnesty. Suppose that illegal American college students formed radical pro-U.S. organizations on Quebec's campuses and demanded resident tuition discounts and affirmative-action preferences.

Let us further suppose that when the Montreal Canadiens played the Washington Capitals at the Bell Centre, large numbers of illegal Americans waved the American flag, booed, hissed, and doused Canadiens fans with beer when "O, Canada" was sung in French prior to the opening face-off.

How do you suppose Canada would react? Would Quebec City and Laval declare themselves "sanctuary cities" and refuse to cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport the illegal Americans? Would Quebec offer driver's licenses to the illegals? Would the province refuse to ask voters for identification and proof of citizenship?

If Quebec's provincial parliament passed a law allowing the police to demand proof of citizenship from suspected illegals, would the Prime Minister call it "misguided"? Would the Bishop of Montreal accuse the province of "Nazism"? Would residents of Calgary and Winnipeg call for a boycott of Quebec? Do you suppose the federal parliament in Ottawa would propose legislation to grant citizenship to the illegals (thereby allowing them to sponsor the emigration to Canada of their relatives back in the Unites States)?

Of course not. Anyone remotely familiar with Canadian politics knows exactly what would happen. A situation like the one described above would cause the province to explode.

(read the rest here)

[somebody had this posted on facebook, and I thought I would share...]

English Only...

[HT: 22words]

GOP Healt Plan

From the Chicago Tribune:

Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate have spent the spring, summer and fall grappling with how to fix the health care system. They're still trying to craft a bill they can sell to Americans -- or even explain in plain English.

And the Republicans? Well, as the minority party, they're mainly on the sidelines. They've become the party of "no," sniping at every Democratic health care reform idea without promoting any of their own. Right?

Not entirely.

Over the summer and fall, Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced six -- yes, six -- health care reform proposals. You didn't hear? Well, those plans didn't produce much of a ripple because Democrats dominate the Congress.

(Read the Rest)

Six Health Care Reform Proposals from the Republican party. I haven't heard about any of them! Have you? It is amazing to me how one sided the media is!

Jim DeMint's blog has the same article.

Abortion Debate

Here is a really interesting article from the Denver Post. It is by a guy named David Harsanyi, who starts his article titled The Abortion Debate changing, by stating,

As an atheist and a secular kinda guy, I practice moral relativism regularly. Still, I've always struggled mightily with the ethics and politics of abortion. Apparently, I'm not alone."

I mention this article because he brings about a point, from a different perspective, of something that has bothered me for a long time. I have often noticed that there are many people who have a liberal leaning who use the "if there is a possibility..." argument in so many arenas, yet they are unwilling to apply the same logic to the abortion debate. Harsanyi states it much better than I do by saying this,

After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?"

read the entire article here.

Do you see the logic that is being used?

One other time I saw this sort of logic was in the Global Warming debate. I saw a video on a blog. It was well done, here is a link to the blog where I got it. I liked the video so much I posted it on my blog. It wasn't until a few days later that I got to thinking about the logic behind the argument that it began to bother me.

That was last December, and it has continued to gnaw at the back of my mind. If someone can say that the Death penalty is wrong ... just in case we're wrong, or if someone can say that we should do something about the environment... just in case it is really impacting things they way some say it is, then can't we say that abortion should be stopped... just in case?!?

How much do we need? What if there was only a 10% chance that that fetus was a real human being? What if there was only a 1% chance that they were, in-fact, alive?!? If there was even a 0.5%, wouldn't it be enough to pass some laws to prohibit it?

Think of some of the excuses that people give to not pass laws to prohibit it. What do they have to do with? The economy? The freedom of others? What if I said, "there should be no pollution control laws because it will put a strain on businesses." How do you think a global warming activist would respond?

I think that is really why this whole debate bothers me so much. Besides the fact that I really do believe that those babies are really babies... It is the inconsistency with the logic. I am a Geometry teacher, I spend my days engulfed in logic. The refusal to admit the weakness of their arguments and the lack of consistency with how they reason is infuriating.

As for me, if you know me at all, then you know that our family has felt the loss of two babies that never saw the light of a day, that never breathed a breath of air. They died while still in the womb and we grieved their loss. Making an issue like this one a political one just seems wrong. Harsanyi points that out as well.

Read the article, it is worth a few minutes of your time.

[HT: Challies, for the link to the article]

How Much is a Trillion Dollars?

How Much is a Trillion Dollars?



Ever wondered? This is really cool.

(Hat Tip: Josh Harris via Justin Taylor via Matt Perman.)

Tea anyone?

there is a Tea Party Protest in Greenville, SC!

What am I talking about? Read these things...
Click Here for the LinkedIn event profile
Click Here for the Facebook Page of Tea Parties
Click Here for the Channel 7 News info abou this event
Click Here for the Freedom Works website

Also, slightly related, check out this video:

Personal Responsibility

I am trying not to be overly critical, but it is... just... so... fun... to PICK!

[HT: Kelli Jones]

Look it up...

I heard about something on the radio last night, but just couldn't believe it. So, this morning, first thing, I did a little google search, and sure enough, there it was.

It seems that the Oxford Junior Dictionary has dropped several words from the dictionary.  

I am not going to attempt to repeat the entire article I read, the writer at the Christian Post did a great job of summarizing the story (go figure, a professional writer).  Instead, I will give you a taste, and then point you in the direction of the full article.

Some of the words that were dropped:

"bishop," "chapel," "disciple," "minister," "sin," and "devil"

Some of the words that were added:

"blog," "biodegradable," "MP3 player," "democratic," and "celebrity"

As much as I like to blog, should it really replace "disciple"?!?

Here is another little clip from the article:

The decision by OUP to discontinue particular words is a form of "verbal engineering," Erin Manning recently wrote on Beliefnet’s conservative Crunchy Con blog.

Manning cited Catholic moral theologian William Smith as saying, "All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering."

"Deciding to drop a word that has already fallen out of use, become obsolete, from a dictionary is not a political act," said Manning on Monday, "but removing words still in everyday use just because you've decided they ought not be important in the vocabulary of a modern child most decidedly is."

Here is the full article, in case you were wanting to read the rest.  I do feel a little nervous about talking about it.  I wonder if big brother is watching.  I make a promise to all of my readers (all two of you) that I will refuse to adopt the newspeak on this blog as long as I can hold out!

Logical Point of View

Great perspective on this controversy. Love the logic.



[HT: Mmmm, That's Good Coffee]

It's Him! It's Him!

Can I touch the hem of his garment?

Wow. 

Just in time for the Christmas Season, we get to see what Christmas is really all about.  It's about hope and the promise of change.  It is about the "Son of Promise" and the "Child of Hope" finally coming to us in our time of greatest need.

Rush the aisles this holiday season and pick one of these up for your children.  May they treasure it all of their days.

And for you, maybe you should pick up one of his books... Words that were actually penned by this Great man.

To be honest now.  I don't know if I have ever seen anything scarier in my life.  I thought it was a joke when my mom told me about it, so I had to go online to see for myself.  If you don't believe me, here is a link to the Amazon page:  Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope

More for Non-Sequitur

I know that Non-Sequitur probably won't care about this, but just thought that I would pass this one along as well.

[Additional HT: True Grit]

Non-Sequitur?

In an earlier post I quoted Ronald Reagan.  Here is that quote again:

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

I personally like that quote. I think that it really drives home an excellent point. That point, in my opinion, is that the perspective of these children is often dismissed.  To drive that point home, I had someone fulfill this by actually adding this comment to that post:

Non-sequitur. Everyone who is against abortion has already been born, too.

~anonymous commenter

"Non-Sequitur" is Latin for "it does not follow."  In other words, this anonymous commenter is trying to say that Reagan's statement did not follow logically.  Or that there is no absolute concrete evidence to support that statement.  The anonymous commenter, in an effort to support his criticism, then states that "everyone who is against abortion has already been born too. I would disagree with that statement.  I would say that there are those who are not yet born who would be against abortion.  This is, again, ignoring the perspective of the children.

To help validate this, what we would need would be someone who is an abortion survivor.  Someone who has survived, but had also grown up and could be a voice for those who do not survive.  I just saw this video over at True Grit's Blog, and thought that it fit in perfectly with this particular post.

One of my favorite things that she says in this video is a little after minute 7, when she says that she was laying on the table trying to survive.  Do you get what that implies?  "Trying to survive."  Right after that she says something about women's rights, but then she says, "What about my rights.?"

Normally it bothers me when people use the phrase, "What about my rights?"  But this is a case when it should be said.  Usually people say that in the midst of immaturity, and they are referring to small unnecessary items, but she is talking about life! 

This video is great!  My favorite part in this video is when she says something to the men.  She says something like, "You were made for greatness.  You were made to protect women and children."

To sum up:  In my house we celebrate the conception of a new child into our house.  We pray for that baby and talk about that baby.  When the baby doesn't survive, we mourn that loss of life, because that is exactly what it is... A loss of life.

If you are at all confused as to whether God sees an unborn child as a person, search the scriptures.  Consider Psalm 139.  Take in Jeremiah chapter 1.  Look in the gospels when it talks about the mother of Jesus and the mother of John when they meet for the first time.  Notice that it says that the "child" leapt in its mother's womb.  There are other scriptures as well, but I will pick this up again later.

I miss Reagan

I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

There is nothing like good, simple, straight-forward, logical statements.

Jobs?

Got this in an e-mail from a family member, and thought it was funny surprisingly accurate and scary.  So, I thought that I would share it with you!