A Sad Day in American History

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

I fear we have failed our founders and our freedom...

Bumper Sticker

I saw a great bumper sticker today:

"Stay free. Govern yourself."

Well said.

It got me thinking about self-government and its relationship to external government. The amount of external government a people need is directly related to the amount of self-government that same people possess. And its a double-edge sword. The more external government imposed on a people, the less their need to govern themselves, and therefore a dependency is created by which more and more external control is needed. Freedom is awarded to and kept by those who have learned to govern themselves.

Think about it.

If we would govern our own finances, we wouldn't have need for government bailouts.
If we would govern our own bodies, we wouldn't have need for government welfare to support our illegitimate children.
If we took more responsibility for our own lives and futures, there'd be a lot fewer laws on the books.

Our country is headed in the wrong direction on this spectrum. So "stay free, govern yourself." And help others learn to do the same.

Michael

Okay, though I risk cultural suicide, I must say that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND the Michael Jackson hysteria.

Disclaimer: I understand that he was extremely talented (fighting the urge to ask, "so what?"). I understand that he accomplished a lot in the arts and entertainment world. I understand that he bridged the gap in a racially divided industry. And heck, I'm a huge Motown fan... c'mon Jackson 5.

However, I do not understand the fawning over a dead MAN. That's it... he's just a man. And a very tormented, misguided man at that. I don't care how much you like or were influenced by his music... what did he really ever do for you? What was worth the pure idol worship going on today? (Especially from those, like myself, who would call themselves Christians.) Where was the eternal perspective in all of the hoopla? I think the lack thereof is what bothered me the most.

I checked my facebook twice today and was assaulted by MJ memorial play-by-play... seriously people?

I didn't catch much of the news coverage (honestly, I had no interest in watching it), but the couple parts I saw were just absurd. Brooke Shields saying she knew Michael was "perched somewhere in a crescent moon..."? Smokey Robinson saying that Jackson would "live on and on and on and on" and everyone cheering obsessively? From someone who believes in the eternal, I would say, yes, MJ is living on and on and on... possibly in eternal torment. What is worth cheering about that? Let's hope he met His Creator (the one who gave him all his talent) on this side of eternity.

In all the news coverage, one image kept coming to my mind: the statue Jackson had of himself on the cover of his "History" album. We really are not that immortal, are we? There is only one King and Michael is not him. All the fame and fortune and talent and fanfare got him where? Dead at 50 from a probable drug overdose? I am reminded of the Scripture that says, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36)

And that really is a reminder to those of us still living (not a cut on Michael himself). We are the ones who elevate celebrities to god-like status. We are the ones who strive for god-like status ourselves. We want to turn the other way and pretend immorality is no big deal. We are the idol worshipers. At this point, God is the only person who knows the condition of Michael's eternal soul, but what does this say about the soul of America?

Ok, let's talk healthcare...

I've been meaning to write a post pertaining to the issue of healthcare for a while, and due to some issues raised by my sister's last post, I decided to go on and do it. I by no means consider myself an expert in the field, so I'm mostly curious to hear your opinion in regard to healthcare--does our current system in America work, and if not, what can be done to fix it?

I personally think healthcare in America needs some major revamping. My husband is a small business owner, so we have to buy our own health insurance--I know firsthand that it is ridiculously unaffordable for the average American who doesn't have this benefit through their job.

In most business transactions, there are two parties involved--the party providing a product or service and the party consuming that product or service. Why in healthcare is there a third party--the insurance company--making a killing off my healthcare? Does this not drive costs way up? Because the insurance company foots the bill, doctors can pretty much charge whatever they want--it eliminates alot of the competition that makes other sectors of our economy work.

And does it not make the consumer much less conscientious in regards to their healthcare? If all I pay is a $20 co-pay when I go to the doctor, I don't really care how many unnecessary things they do--I'm not paying for it. When I recently had a baby, I didn't care how many doctors charged hundreds of dollars to stop by my room and basically do nothing more than tell me how cute my baby was. But because we recently switched our insurance to an HSA, you better believe I'm now an extremely conscientious shopper when it comes to medical care. I've started calling around to pediatricians to find out how much it will cost to bring my child in for a well baby checkup, and do you know what? They can't tell me! They have absolutely no accountability to the customer, because they just bill the insurance company. Now, before anyone does anything to a member of my family at the doctor, I want to know what they're doing, why they're doing it, and how much it will cost. They look at me like I'm crazy. This system is crazy!

I mean, think about the implications in any other business transaction. Let's take grocery shopping for example. If I walked into the grocery store, paid a $20 co-pay, and was then able to get whatever I want with a third party footing the bill, I'd have a hay day! No more looking for good deals. No more comparing prices. No more off-brands for me! Heck, the store wouldn't even need to bother posting prices. Who cares? It seems ridiculous when you look at it in this light, so why do we take this system for granted when it comes to healthcare?

In my opinion, costs would go down if we gave individuals more responsibility for their own healthcare, and medical providers more responsibility for offering good services at competitive prices...not to mention eliminating third party profits.

So why not government funded, universal healthcare? In some ways, I wish I could make myself believe that it was a just and efficacious system. It certainly seems like it would make things easier on me personally to not have to pay for or worry about my own healthcare. But I just don't think it's right, and I just don't think it works.

When I think about someone else paying for my healthcare, I selfishly think it's a great idea. But when I watch my husband's company pay thousands of dollars in taxes to fund current medicare programs, I think "hey! that's the money I was gonna use to feed my kids with this month!" We have a hard enough time now running a business that provides us and others with a livelihood--I honestly don't know if we could do it if Obama increases our taxes as much as he would have to to fund his proposed healthcare plan. So in that sense, I would definitely rather pay for my own healthcare than watch the government tax my husband out of a job. We wouldn't be able to eat or have a roof over our heads, but hey, we'd have free healthcare!

And, as my sister pointed out in a recent comment, it's not right for those who live a healthy lifestyle (don't smoke or do drugs, don't drink excessively, don't have sex with multiple partners resulting in STD's, don't have abortions, eat healthy and exercise, etc.), to pay the medical costs of those who make different choices.

And I'm not even going to take time to touch on the fact that from everything I've read or studied, it is simply not sustainable long-term for the government to pay for universal healthcare, even if it were a good idea.

That being said, I know it's an extremely complex, not cut-and-dry issue. I know there are times when people need life-saving treatments and can't afford them. And I don't know what the solution is. What do you think?

One Question...

With the onset and expansion of so many new government programs and spending (new cap and trade bill, universal healthcare, etc.), I find myself wanting to ask Obama one question. If I could be in a room with him face to face, here's what I'd want to know:

Are you stupid (completely ignorant of history and even present day examples of socialistic failure)? OR Do you genuinely believe that you can do it better than anyone who's preceded you, that these policies will work because you have a new and better way than the thousands who've tried for utopia before you? OR Are you simply power hungry and deliberately deceiving people so that you can make them dependent on you and enslaved forever?

It has to be one of those options, right? I know he's not stupid. So what do you think motivates Obama and other liberals?

For your viewing enjoyment!

These are 2 conservative students from Dartmouth College.... delivering their message in a very entertaining way. I saw them on Fox News this morning. Enjoy!

Young Con Anthem

Jon & Kate

"Jon & Kate, Plus 8" is a popular reality show on TLC that follows a couple who has both twins and sextuplets. There's been lots of recent chatter about their marriage and possible divorce. My friend Clayton has an excellent post on the matter and on relationships in general.

Read it here.

I was watching Sesame Street...

with my 2 yr old this morning. Oscar and fellow grouches were running a news station when one of them proceeded to comment: "Maybe I'll start watching the Fox News Network. Now there's a TRASHY news program."

Unbelievable. It starts so young.

"24" and Politics

I am, for the most part, a fan of the show "24" (minus a few boo-boo seasons). But I have been watching and enjoying it this year... that is until recently.

(Disclaimer: a slight spoiler is ahead, so if you are behind in the show, proceed at your own discretion.)

A couple things are beginning to irk me:

• The incessant "Go Green" commercials interspersed throughout the show, using the actors themselves to promote the supposed global warming theory. They really screwed up last week when the now evil Tony gave his "go green" spiel in the middle of his double crossing... big boo. That did nothing to help the "green" cause.

• Check out this clip from "24's" new "Chloe", played by Janeane Garofalo. It's her obscene take on the Tea Parties (MSNBC allowing such comments is a whole other thing). You really only have to listen to the first 40secs to get the gist.

Actors should keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics. It would help their careers.

"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue." Proverbs 17:28

Communism 101

Every so often I take my son to "story time" at the library. It's for kids under 3... basically babies. Every week we sing "The More We Get Together":

The more we get together
together
together
The more we get together
the happier we'll be

For my books are your books
And your books are my books

The more we get together the happier we'll be

Now I'm all for sharing. But I'm also all for private property. Something about this song irks me. I call it Commie 101.

The Superbowl Ad that Could've Been...

CatholicVote.com had an amazing ad planned for the Superbowl, but NBC rejected it. Click here to see the ad and read more about it.... trust me, you'll want to see it.

An Insightful Perspective

An African American pastor's thoughts on Barack Obama:  

http://stevemurrell.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/post-election-insights.html

Another Way

We here at The Sisters Wade have been pretty fed up with the lack of true conservatism among our politicians today. The Democratic party is WAY off... the Republican party is shifting farther and farther to the left. Socialism seems to be the buzz word these days, so let's shoot straight: Both parties are guilty of Socialism! Both keep implementing more central control. Both keep throwing federal money, bureaucracy and regulation at problems.

In this election cycle, I have heard more talk of choosing between the "lesser of two evils" than in times past. While liberals may have their long-awaited candidate of choice, I think it's clear to say that conservatives are anything but thrilled with theirs.

A two party system has been around in America pretty much from our inception (Federalists and Anti-federalists). Since the Civil War, the two parties in power today (Democrats and Republicans) have been the major political players. So what happens when we feel like we're losing our voice in the public arena?

Is there another way?

As conservatives, do we vote McCain in hopes of keeping Obama out of power and avoiding what could be extremely destructive social/economic policies, not to mention long-standing ramifications of liberal Supreme Court nominees? Do we stay home and hope our silence catches the ears of those who supposedly represent us in government; hope that the horrors of liberalism ignite a conservative revolution? Do we vote 3rd Party and perhaps stand beside a candidate who more closely espouses our worldview, regardless of his or her chance of winning?

These are questions we've been pondering. What do you think? We're interested in hearing how you've been wrestling through these things and reaching your decision in this very important election.

In case you're interested, here are two 3rd party candidates that we find appealing and noteworthy: Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes.

[By the way, I had a chance to hear Michelle Malkin speak tonight... Maybe she'll feature our blog on Hot Air someday. :)]

The Folly of Fairness

Obama used the word "fair" or "fairness" several times tonight... especially when referring to taxes and the economy: McCain's tax policy isn't "fair"; It's only "fair" for the rich to pay more; etc. News flash for you Obama: Life isn't fair and legislating fairness is actually a form of injustice.

(Side note: I thought the debate was horrible. Is anyone else really disappointed with our choices this year? Obama, because I disagree with just about everything he says and McCain because he does not articulate the conservative viewpoint at all... maybe because he's not one. Is there no politician who can explain a conservative worldview?)

Back to "fairness." I was reading a parenting book recently and came across an excellent section on the concept of fairness. I thought I'd leave an excerpt here because it's so appropriate in making my point and in addressing the state of our national psyche. Now, granted, the excerpt is dealing with children, but you have to admit that Obama sounds quite like a playground child when whining that "it's not fair":

"There is a universal tendency to try to make life fair. 'You had your turn, now it is mine.' 'You already have two balls and I have none, so you should be fair and share with me.' 'Daddy gave Johnny one, so Suzy should get one also.' We tend to think of legislated fairness as equality, when in fact it is inequality. This is so ingrained in us that we equate fairness with justice. The communist system is built on a principle of forced fairness. In contrast, the American system of government is based on individual rights.

"Pure fairness is as unlikely and as undesirable as making all mountains the same height. It is unnatural and can only be achieved through forced injustice. When it is a rule handed down by 'Big Brother' it will never be carried out with benevolence on the part of the one being stripped of his abundance, nor can it be received with thankfulness on the part of the one expecting legislated equality.

"This indulgent demand for fairness begins at the earliest age. You can know you have already cultivated self-centerdness in your children when Grandma must buy gifts of equal value for each grandchild in order to keep feelings from being hurt. Trying to keep equal accounts, whether in things, privileges, or discipline, is not wise. It trains children to believe they have the right to weigh and balance, to demand equal share, or to veto the good fortune of another. They are turning selfishness into a childhood occupation. Evil covetousness is being rewarded. Parents are missing one of the greatest opportunities to teach their children to rejoice in the good fortune of another.

"It should never be our intention to show favoritism, but circumstantial inequality is not only just but essential to the very foundations of individuality. Some are naturally tall, while others are short. Some are gifted in many areas, whereas others appear to be gifted in little. One farmer receives rain while another suffers drought. One is born into a family of opportunity while another is born into social bondage. One gets a promotion while another loses his job. Many run the race, but only one takes first place.

"When your child gets knocked down, don't reward his whining of unfairness. Teach him how to get up and walk away with dignity. If the other children run off and leave him, teach him how to organize play that will cause them to want to be a part of his activity. But never make your child the unwelcome tagalong of despising peers. When rain falls on his neighbors' crops but not his, teach him how to irrigate. When his wages are lower, teach him how to manage his finances. When someone else gets the job, teach him how to start a company that provides better services. If he has fewer gifts, teach him how to expect nothing and to make little into abundance. Rather than whine for equality, teach him how to give until others are blessed above himself."

How did we get to the point in America where we feel we are owed something by someone, usually the government? Why is fairness now espoused as a virtue? Why are our candidates afraid to tell people "NO" and willing to promise them everything they desire? Clearly our mommies and daddies did not tell us what we needed to hear, so I will: Quit whining and grow up. Life is not fair.

(All quotes taken from "No Greater Joy. Vol. 1" by Michael and Debi Pearl)

Live To Impact: The Poor

We're doing a series at my church called Live To Impact, challenging people to answer the question: "WHAT ARE YOU LIVING FOR?"

Today's focus was "living to impact the poor and underprivileged." How can we as Christians and a church make a difference in our community by taking care of the poor? And maybe even more foundational, WHY should we care for the poor?

Clayton Bell delivered a great message on the subject. You can listen to it in its entirety here, but I wanted to highlight a few points.

1. Who Is Responsible? Regardless of your political bent, if you think the government should be doing more or less in regard to poverty, the Bible makes it clear that God's people have a responsibility to care for the poor. That means it's MY responsibility. If you call yourself a follower of Christ, it's YOUR responsibility. You don't need to be voted into office. You don't need to be an occupational minister. Just do it.

2. Our Motivation. The Bible leaves no room for error: taking care of the poor, the orphan, the widow is paramount to God. This is often challenging to our human nature and preconceived mindsets. It's much more natural to give or care for those who can offer you something in return. Or perhaps you have (as I have) erred on the side of judgment toward those less fortunate in life. "They're lazy"... "they're irresponsible"... "if they'd just work harder and suck it up they'd could make something of themselves". Here's the deal: We must find our motivation for caring for the poor in who Jesus is and what He did for us. Spiritually speaking, I was homeless, I was lazy, I was poor, I was smelly, I had nothing and could do nothing for myself; but Jesus did for me what I couldn't earn and what I didn't deserve. He became poor that I might become rich. His mercy triumphed over judgment and it rescued me. What He's done for me in the spiritual, I am now called to replicate in the physical for the poor and underprivileged. As I clothe and feed and care for the least of these, I also have the privilege of sharing why I do such things and that reason is Jesus. What He's done for me He can also do for them.

3. The Cold Hard Facts. Did you know that in America in the late 1800's more than 90% of all welfare was done by the Church and "volunteer socieites?" The government had a small, if any, hand in such matters. As we've written previously, giving Christians could well eliminate the U.N.'s estimated $70 billion world-wide poverty problem with money to spare. Take for instance my city of Tallahassee, FL. There are, on average, about 900 homeless people at any given time. There are about 350 churches here. If each church provided for 2 or 3 of these people, the homeless problem would evaporate. (I know that poverty issues can be more complicated and you can't always make someone stay out of such circumstances, but this is just to illustrate how well-suited the Church is to answering the ills of society).

So, what are YOU living for? Let's ask hard questions and challenge ourselves to this standard of giving and loving as Christ did. Before you ask your government to do something, ask yourself if you're doing anything. Be open to opportunities to serve the underprivileged in your community. If you live in Tallahassee, come join us as we serve the residents of the Hope Community.

Saddleback Follow Up

Most agree that the Saddleback Forum last weekend was well-conducted by lead pastor Rick Warren. He had a chance to ask both candidates some straight-forward honest questions (whether they answered honestly remains to be seen). And he did an excellent job. But what does he himself think about politics? Where does he fall on the issues? He has not been as politically outspoken as say a Dr. James Dobson or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and that has caused some to criticize him, some to mischaracterize him and some to appreciate him. Warren's lack of candidate endorsement and political rhetoric in no way means he's soft on the issues or trying to appease all sides. I have heard him speak on government/politics a couple of times and he is well-versed in the arena. He is a man of strong conviction and in my opinion has a pretty good grasp of the biblical worldview.

You can read some of his thoughts here in a rare interview with the Wall Street Journal. The article is worth the read but here's a brief summary of Warren's main points:

• He's pro-life and believes abortion is the most significant issue affecting the evangelical vote in the fall.
• He rejects the idea of tolerance as far as it has come to mean that all ideas are equally valid. He is no relativist.
• He views McCain as a limited government guy and Obama as a big government guy.
• He wants a non-government solution to things like poverty and disease, believing that churches should lead the way in this fight.
• Though he's one of the most generous men in the world (giving away 90% of his income), he believes "the answer to poverty is business development, not charity." He believes free market, enterprise and creativity are vital to a society.
• He knows that true answers to societies ills can only come from Jesus and His Church. The government cannot be a savior.
  
• He wants to return civility to the public square, wishing that people could "disagree about the issues without demonizing each other." And Saturday night was one of his efforts in doing so.

All I have to say is "Amen!" (And read the article...)

Saddleback Forum

I’m curious what other people thought about the Rick Warren forum last week. I haven’t been too excited about John McCain, but his answers to these questions were really encouraging. Although I don't agree with all of his positions, he knows where he stands. He answered the questions directly and conclusively.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed to me to waffle throughout, trying to answer in such a way as to include the greatest number of people possible. How can you answer moral questions when for you there are no moral absolutes? All of his answers were “relative”; in fact, he even used that word himself. How can we be confident in a president who has no absolute moral basis for any of the decisions he makes?

Take, for example, the question of abortion. Warren asked both candidates at what point a baby should be given the protection of human rights. McCain’s answer was simple: “At conception.” Obama, however, actually said that question was above his pay grade. Then why on earth is he running for President? What more fundamental question could there be? And if you’re really not sure when life or human rights begin, why err on the side of death? He said a lot about wanting to work with as many people as possible, and about how women don’t come to these decisions lightly. By that logic, if I don’t lightly come to the decision to murder someone, because I believe it’s in my best interest, does that make it okay?

Or what about when Warren asked the candidates to define “rich”. I thought this was a great question. Obama has talked so much about “taxing the rich”, it leaves one to ask who, exactly, is rich. Obama did put a number to it, those making above $250,000, but then admitted that it’s completely relative, dependent on factors such as what region of the country you live in. The problem is, the tax code won’t be relative. It won’t look at what region of the country you live in, for example. It just doesn’t seem fair to tax the rich, when it’s virtually impossible to define “rich”. To most people, rich probably means anyone making one dollar more than they themselves make. Where do you draw the line?

I wasn’t able to see the whole broadcast, so I’d be curious to hear people’s reactions to some of the other questions. And I’m also curious about something else—for those of you who hold to a worldview of moral relativism and have nothing absolute on which to base your decisions and values, how do you go about deciding what you believe about any given issue? Do you use your own reason? Do you try to do what’s best for the greatest number? (And if so, how do you decide which greatest number to be in favor of when it comes to issues like abortion—is it the women or the unborn children?) Anyways, what did you think about the forum and where the candidates stand on these issues?

The Bottom Line

The bottom line on my conservatism is this...

I don't necessarily disagree with the end goals of my liberal friends, just the means by which we get there. Peace, more affordable health care, a reduction in poverty and crime, a cleaner environment, better schools... Conservatives and Liberals alike desire these things.

So here's the rub: Who's job is it? As a conservative, I would like to see individuals, businesses, CHURCHES, the private sector provide answers for most of societies ills. They are better equipped, more nimble and more creative in handling such things. I believe the government's main job is protecting law-abiding citizens and punishing law-breakers. (i.e. police force, criminal justice system, military). Government is designed for this purpose. The more it gets its hands in matters not rightly under its jurisdiction, the messier things get.

Now I realize this is oversimplified, but can't we take steps toward it instead of farther away?

Well Said

"If you're waiting on Washington to secure your prosperity, you're a socialist." -Dave Ramsey

www.daveramsey.com

A Generous Hypocrisy II

In her previous post, my sister points out that a generous government policy of giving can be quite hypocritical, not to mention, ineffective at times. But none can argue that there are genuine and great needs in our world, and conversation on the best way to meet them is at least honorable.

So I thought I would follow up Kacey's post with what we consider one of the best ways to meet those needs... TITHING.

This post is specifically for all my Christian brothers and sisters. But if God is not really your thing, you might still be interested in hearing of His financial plan for the earth.

Let's define tithing:

The tithe literally means "a tenth." In the Christian faith, a tithe is a tenth of one's increase given to the house of God, the church. I believe the tithe is a biblical mandate, ordained by God from the beginning (it first appears in the Bible in Genesis 14). Tithing is not just Old Testament law. It is precedent before the law was given, and Jesus himself speaks of it in the New Testament (Matthew 23, Luke 11).

The tithe belongs to the Lord. In a biblical worldview, all things belong to God and originate in Him, but the tithe is specifically referred to as belonging to God. It's His off the top. It's His before the bills. It's His before our needs. It's His before our Starbucks. When you tithe, you are not being generous, you are simply being obedient.

It is also important to note that the tithe is not based on one's perceived ability to afford it. It is an act of faith, honor and worship to God no matter your level of income. I was fortunate to have a family who believed in and practiced tithing, and it has, therefore, become a way of life for me. I have tithed in times of great blessing and tithed in times of great need. Learning to live on 90% of your income is possible (and not an option for believers.)

The Bible actually refers to withholding the tithe as robbing God. Malachi 3:8-12 says, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.

So back to meeting needs.

Statistics show that less than 2% of Americans tithe today. The Barna Group found "that tithing among all born again adults has stayed within a range of 6% to 14% throughout the past decade." C'mon people!

John and Sylvia Ronsvalle, a husband and wife team of researchers have consistently tracked American expenditures as well as global need for many years. They have estimated that $70-$80 billion a year could meet the most essential human needs around the world, including "projects for clean water and sanitation, prenatal and infant/maternal care, basic education, immunizations, and long-term development efforts." The Ronsvalles go on to write, "Consider this: If church members in the United States would increase their giving to 10 percent of their income, there could be an additional $86 billion (over and above their estimated $70-$80 billion) available for overseas missions." Tithing Christians Would Meet Global Need.

So before we call for the government to do more, let us examine our own hearts. Let us not be participants in this generous hypocrisy. Let us not be the ones calling for increased civil spending if we ourselves are not fulfilling our Christian duty. Caesar will for sure get what is Caesar's. Will God get what is His? (Matthew 22:21).