LeBron James, ESPN, and Pop Culture

I consider myself to be a sports fan, not just for one particular type of sport, but for many.  I enjoy baseball and football, hockey and golf, NASCAR and soccer.  You name the sport, I will probably watch it.

However, I have a growing disdain for professional basketball.  I enjoy college basketball, because those guys, for the most part, know the fundamentals of the game.  But professional basketball, in my opinion, has gone completely downhill in the last 10-15 years.

Growing up, I was a fan of the L.A. Lakers.  With Magic Johnson leading the Showtime offense, they were just enjoyable to watch.  They had great showdowns will Larry Bird and the Celtics, later with Isaiah Thomas and the Pistons.  It was good basketball, played by people who were good at what they do.

My disdain of pro basketball began when the Charlotte Hornets drafted Kobe Bryant, who then refused to play for them.  Coming out of high school, he thought he was entitled to play for one of the best teams in the history of the sport.  It was at that point I stopped being a Lakers fan.  I jumped on the Spurs bandwagon, because they had David Robinson, a fine player on the court, and fine person off of the court.  But, as the years went on, my overall desire for pro basketball faded away.

I did not care for the players coming out of college and demanding the excessive contracts, even though they had never played a minute in the NBA.  I did not like the style of basketball that was being played.  The NBA turned into glorified street ball.  It was no longer enjoyable to sit down and watch.  And when you add to the fact that Bill Walton was an announcer, it became unwatchable.

The NBA became a 2nd tier sport in the late 90's and early 2000's.  Television ratings diminished.  There were not any marketable players to carry the NBA after the retirement of Michael Jordan.

Then along came LeBron James.  He was going to save the NBA.  And he came out of high school with a bang.  He is tremendously blessed with size and skill that cannot be matched in today's game.  He is an extraordinary player.  The networks love him.  Commentators will never have anything bad to say about him.  Yet, I could care less.  He has done nothing to bring me back to the NBA, even as a casual fan.

Now, Mr. James thinks he is so important and that everyone cares so much about where he is going to play that he has basically demanded that ESPN give him an hour of prime time television on Thursday night to announce to the world which city he will bless with his presence for the next several years.  And ESPN did as he asked.  They will dedicate an hour of prime time TV to LeBron and his announcement.  This is an announcement that he could make in 2-3 minutes, but he is such an egomaniac that he thinks he deserves an entire hour.

Now, I am not convinced that he wants to sign with a team to win a championship, or multiple championships.  It was not that long ago that players wanted to play for winners, teams that had a chance to win a championship.  Some players would even take pay cuts in order to do that.  There were also some players who chose to remain loyal to their teams for an entire career, but free agency has ended that.  LeBron is motivated by money.  He wants to go where he will get a big, fat paycheck and get endorsement deals.  If he wins a championship, that can be a bonus, but I do not believe that the championship is his motivation.

I am not going to watch the spectacle on Thursday.  There are other things that I could be doing at that time, and I am sure I will be able to find something to occupy my time.  The sad thing, there will be many people who will fall into this trap that is LeBron James.  ESPN will probably get good ratings for this 1-hour special.  LeBron will get all the publicity that he desires.  But the world will go on.

This is one of the main problems with our society today.  People care so much about things that just do not matter.  If you polled people on the street or in the mall or anywhere you go, you will find that many do not know the answers to basic questions about our government, about economics, about our nation's history, or about current events.  Why is this?  Because, as a society, we just don't care.

LeBron James will get more coverage in the news over the next several days than issues that are much more important.  Our lives will not be affected by what team LeBron will play for next year, yet issues in the news that will affect us are cast aside for the LeBron circus.   Issues such as nationalized health care, immigration, the oil spill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are but a few of the issues that are much more important than the NBA, yet they will remain on the back burner.

While I was in college, I had a roommate who tried out for an intramural basketball team, but he did not make the team.  After a day or so of pondering what happened, he came to the conclusion that "In the light of eternity, it just doesn't matter" that he did not make the team.  This is a truth that we all need to come to terms with.  Looking at the years to come, does it matter where LeBron plays basketball?  Will it bring peace to the Middle East?  Will it bring harmony between Democrats and Republicans?  Will it end the oil spill in the Gulf?  Of course, the answers to these questions is no, this decision will have no impact on these other things.  Then why are we choosing to make such a big deal about it?

Vacation Bible School 2010

It's that time of year again - time for Vacation Bible School.  Many churches have an annual VBS.  However, I am partial to the VBS that is being held at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon.  All children who are going into grades 1-6 are able and welcome to attend.  VBS will be the week of July 12 - July 16, and it will be help from 9:00 am - Noon.  We look forward to seeing you there.

What do the PA primary results tell us?

I always find it quite humorous to watch the political pundits try to explain election results. They fall over each other trying to explain why things happened the way they did. They attempt to give the Washington view of the results instead of the Main Street view of the results. These pundits have no clue as to what those of us on Main Street are thinking, and it shows. They dismiss Tea Party protesters as a fringe, right-wing minority, full of bigots and homophobes. They do not understand why we, as citizens, would vote out long-time Washington insiders and replace them with fresh faces who care more about the people they represent instead of the office that they serve in.


This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.

1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.

2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.

3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.

4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.

5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.

6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.

Am I missing something in the debate on illegal immigration?

As I have pondered the illegal immigration debate over the last couple of weeks, I cannot help but be confused about the stance that many pro-amnesty Americans are taking.

On the one hand, they are mad at American companies for moving their manufacturing to places like Mexico and Asia because the cost to manufacture in the U.S. is too high (thanks, in most part, to the unions).  Their arguments are aimed at these American companies, accusing them of supposedly putting the almighty dollar ahead of everything, including the people that they are putting out of jobs.  (I am not going to take a stance on this issue, but I just intend to point out some inconsistencies in other people's thinking.)

However, many of these union groups and civil rights groups and all these other groups that protest the moving of jobs overseas are now complaining about Arizona trying to enforce immigration laws.  In their line of thinking, these illegal immigrants are people, too, and we should accept them with open arms.  We need them here, in order to keep the economy going.

Now, if we are mad at companies for moving jobs overseas and taking these jobs away from able-bodied Americans, why are we not as outraged about people coming from other countries and taking our jobs on our own soil?  Am I missing something in all of this?

Illegal Immigration - The Next Political Battlefield

In the ever-changing American political landscape, our politicians keep changing the 'Hot Button' issue.  It is frustrating, in that they never stay on a topic long enough to actually have a legitimate dialogue and public debate about that particular issue.  Instead, they would rather call people names, demagogue the issue, pass a resolution in Congress, and move on to the next thing - all in the hopes of finding a popular issue that will carry them to their re-election.

Over the past several years, we have seen many 'Hot Button' topics come and go, including: the 2000 Presidential election, Afghanistan, Iraq, WMD, National Security, 1st amendment rights (and the non-constitutional right to privacy), global warming, global climate change, bailouts, the economy, taxes, hope & change, and the list goes on and on.  The latest and greatest issue is that of illegal immigration and how we should deal with it.

Supporters of the pro-amnesty cause do not like to use the term "illegal" when referring to this particular group of people.  They will refer to these folks as immigrants (without the illegal moniker) or as undocumented workers.  They refer to those who want tighter immigration measures as racists or xenophobes.  They try to play to people's sympathies, because in a debate about the legalities, they have no leg to stand on.

Here is one of my problems with the whole amnesty thing.  We are a nation of laws.  If a nation chooses not to enforce some laws, then what moral authority do they have to enforce others?  Laws are to be enforced equally, on all people, at all times.  No man is to be above the law in this country.  In essence, these people are putting themselves above the law, trying to make the case that the laws do not apply to them.  However, this amnesty movement has become so brazen that not only do illegals gather in large groups to protest our laws, we have civil rights groups and the ACLU standing with them, protesting the nation's laws.

And these protests are not really that peaceful.  While they may not be full-fledged riots, these are people who obviously have no problem with lawlessness (since they are already breaking the law in being here illegally).  So they have no problem in tying up traffic and disrupting local businesses in order to try to get us to have sympathy for them. (Compare these illegal immigrant protests to Tea Party protests and see which ones are more civil).  Yet the establishment applauds these lawless gatherings, while demeaning peaceful Tea Party rallies.

We ought to understand that it is called illegal immigration for a reason.  We have immigration laws in this country.  These people are not following the laws in place.  Therefore, they are here illegally.  It is not very difficult to understand.  They say that this is a nation of immigrants and we should not be closing the door to immigration after all these years.  True, we are a nation of immigrants.  What they are not telling you is that we are a nation of legal immigrants who put emphasis on the rule of law.  There are millions of immigrants here legally who followed the rules and did things the right way.  If the government chooses to reward those who did not follow the rules, then we have slapped the face of those who are here legally.

Many illegal immigrants are here from Mexico.  The Mexican government is mad at us for attempting to enforce immigration laws.  Apparently, we are inhumane for trying to enforce laws.  But one thing we do not hear about are Mexico's immigration laws.  They put people in jail, fine them, deport them.  They will have nothing to do with people who are in their country illegally.  Yet, it is wrong for us to try to enforce our own laws by simply sending people back to their own country?

Also, this is a tremendous national security issue.  If people can easily cross over our southern border, then the door is open for terrorists to get into our country the same way.  The primary goal of the government is to protect the citizens who live under that government.  How can this government protect its citizens when they selectively enforce the laws of the land, not caring who has come across our borders?  Actually, by refusing to enforce immigration laws, they are endangering the citizens, not protecting them.

So, how do we deal with this?  It has been estimated that we have between 10-15 million people in this country illegally?  Can we send them all back to their home country and tell them to start over?  That would be great, but it will be hard to do.  How do we find them all?  How do we keep up with it, since others will inevitably come and take their place?  Does the federal government even care?

Arizona stepped up to the plate and decided that they would start to enforce the federal laws.  Immigration laws are only supposed to be enforced by federal agencies.  Arizona saw that the federal government was shirking their duties of upholding the law.  They want the laws enforced, and if the federal government is not going to do it, then they saw that their only option is to take care of it on their own.

Now, we have the typical liberals out there decrying this move by the state of Arizona.  Many are labelling them as racists.  The President calls them misguided.  Many liberals groups and politicians are lying about the bill, talking of the institutionalization of discrimination and profiling.

The federal government does not really want to do anything about this problem, because they are looking for any way possible to get re-elected.  If we keep them in this country, then surely we can find a way to get them to vote.  And if they find a way to vote, they are going to vote for the people who are letting them stay here.

The answer is simple.  We need to vote for people in the upcoming elections that want to enforce our immigration laws.  We need to hold our current leaders accountable for neglecting to enforce the existing laws.  We need to hold businesses accountable that knowingly hire illegal workers.  We need to tell our leaders that we expect them to do their Constitutional duty and protect this country.  And if they do not do this, then we ought to show them the door.

That Great Day (an Easter Drama)

You are invited to attend "That Great Day," an Easter drama, on Easter Sunday, April 4, at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA.  This drama centers on the events surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  Though many are familiar with these events, to see them re-enacted helps us to understand what Jesus Christ went through for us, and what these events mean for us in light of eternity.

Make this Easter special. Join us Sunday at 8:30 AM, 10:30 AM, or 6:30 PM. We will provide a nursery for children ages three years old and younger. All of our guests are welcome to enjoy light refreshments and a small "Thank You" gift following the drama.

Will the Westboro Baptist Church please go away!!

The Westboro Baptist Church from somewhere in Kansas continues to keep its name in the news headlines, even though everyone would like for them to just go away.  This so-called church is led by the Rev. Fred Phelps.  This church has made a name for itself by protesting everything you can possibly think of, blaming the ills of society on the fact that God does not like homosexuality.  I am not sure how many people are in this church, but my personal feeling is that it is the Phelps family, and that is about it.  These people even tote their kids around and have them protest also.  To me, they are no better than the KKK, using a church as their cover.

Anyway, before I go further, I must say that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and this condemnation can be found in both the Old and New Testaments.  However, people are able to be saved out of this lifestyle.  This Easter season reminds us that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was for all the sins of all mankind, homosexuality included.  If you are a Christian, I do not believe that you can be homosexual.  God is not the author of confusion.  So if homosexuality is a sin, then He could not have made you into that lifestyle - it is a choice that one makes.

But I also believe that we are to reach out to those who do not know Christ.  By holding up signs that say "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", this church is not trying to help anyone know Christ.  Nor are they showing the same love that Jesus Christ showed to sinners.  Jesus died for all of the sins of all mankind - not just for certain sins and certain sinners.  If Jesus Christ showed this kind of love for sinners when He definitely did not need to do so, then why won't these people show that same sort of love for the lost?  Mankind rejected Jesus Christ, yet He still gave His life for us.  In showing them love, we do not accept their sinful behavior.  Rather, we show a genuine interest in their lost soul and the fact that they need to accept Christ as their Savior.

Getting back to the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), they have made the news here in Central PA.  They were sued by a man by the name of Albert Snyder, who lost a son in the war in Iraq.  The church decided that they would protest the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.  Mr. Snyder sued the church over this, and won.  However, an Appeals Court ruled that Mr. Snyder must pay the legal bills for the WBC, which amount to a little over $16,000, money he does not have.  Many people, including Bill O'Reilly, are helping him with this bill.  The case is now going to the Supreme Court.  (I am not sure where the WBC gets their money to travel and protest, as they seem to only have 1 family in their church - the Phelps family.)

Here are some of my questions:

• What does the WBC plan to accomplish?
• Why do these people think that they are too good to share the Gospel with those who need it?
• Do think that they are now God, deciding who should hear the Gospel and who should not?
• Does God abhor homosexuality?  Yes.
• However, does God wish for all sinners to come to a saving knowledge of Him and spend an eternity in heaven?  Yes, He does.
• How did this church's vision for the lost become so distorted and perverted?
• How can they be so full of hatred that they fail to see that what Jesus did for them, he also did for those that this church vehemently opposes and wishes death upon?
• How can these people teach their children this kind of hatred?
• Where do they get their funding?

The Great Commission tells us to go out and teach all people and all nations.  The last time I checked, it did not say teach everyone but gay people.  We are to teach ALL nations.  By refusing to participate in this Biblical admonition, this church is just as guilty and just as sinful as those they condemn.  They have a tremendous opportunity to reach out and tell others about the Gospel.  Instead, they choose to turn their back on the Great Commission and make themselves God, condemning others to an eternity in hell without telling them how they can be saved.

While I was in college, one of the major things that Dr. Bob Jones III tried to drill into us is that "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today."  The fact that people are dying in their sin is not something we should find joy in.  It is something that should burden us.  It should cause us to want to reach out to them even more than what we may already be doing.

The WBC is shameful and appalling.  Because they show no concerns for the souls of others, I must ask myself if they are truly saved.  Do they truly know Christ?  I doubt it,  because if they did, they would not be acting this way.

The Death of Democracy?

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.'  This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans.  This bill had nothing to do with reform.  This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public.  This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans.  This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy.  This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are.  There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time.  If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery.  If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics.  It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote.  We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it.  We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy.  I do not understand how they can say this.  Democracy is based on majority rules.  The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill.  Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed.  However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it.  Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it.  I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want.  Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill.  However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon.  In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November.  Arrogance?  You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill.  However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me.  Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

1. Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege.  I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right.  I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right.  In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government."  Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care.  This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be.  It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
2. The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front.  This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it.  The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance.  They did not seek control.  They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
3. The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.  The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care.  The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care.  This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours.   And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy?  On a bill that was over 2000 pages?  Deliberative democracy?  I don't think so.
4. Abortion is not health care.  I am not sure why it was even part of the bill.  Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions.  The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time.  So what good is this?  And if health care is now a right, what about life?  Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution.  Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution.  So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else?  That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
5. The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill.  The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
6. The process is broken.  In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.'  In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass.  Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down.  Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing.  It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it.  And they promised transparency and ethics?  I'd like to know what happened.
7. The insurance companies are not the enemy.   Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment?  Yes, they could.  But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance.  Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
8. In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education.  Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old.  This is a huge problem.  These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents.  This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
9. People will now be mandated to carry health insurance.  There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance.  I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service.  There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money.  We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something.  This is only a foot in the door.  The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough.  Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
10. This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers.  Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers?  The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage.  Scary?  You bet it is.
11. Why do people think that the government can manage health care?  Social Security is going broke.  Welfare is out of control.  Health care for veterans is not in a good state.  The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs.  The answer is not government control.  The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
12. If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system?  It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do).  It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine.  It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work.  If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire.  This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
13. This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social  reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform.  If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform.  After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
14. Elections have consequences.  In 2008, people voted for change.  The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them.  The liberals already didn't like the Republicans  And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means.  In 2010, we will see change again.  But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on.  Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy.  It actually stifles and inhibits growth.  As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office.  We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

Missions Conference 2010

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to attend the Annual Missions Conference at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA.  This will be a tremendous opportunity to here from missionaries who are working in countries around the world.  They will have exciting things to tell us about their ministry and how God is providing for them and working through them.

If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?

This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit?  If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.

However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to?  I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy?  I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.

As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.

She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card.  I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card.  And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).

She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine).  Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves).  However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter).  Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person.  Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity.  Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level.  They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks.  Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist.  Go figure.

So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA?  Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann?  Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas?  Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet?  Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough?  And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party?  That would be the Republican Party.  The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead.  Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time.  And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters.  She does not need to actually give any evidence.

I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color.  I would be naive to think otherwise.  However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed.  We want fiscal restraint.  We want to get rid of the government entitlements.  We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives.  We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree.  We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color.  It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race.  Those who are against him draw attention to his policies.  And that is the difference between the two groups.  The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.