jump to navigation

Faith Healing Government Miracles September 4, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Constitution, corporations, culture war, Declaration of Independence, faith, God, health care, Jesus Christ, liberals, living wage, morality, news, politics, poverty, truth, wages, welfare.
add a comment

Sojourner’s Jim Wallis is America’s leading preacher of faith healing. Unlike his charismatic brethren, Wallis is preaching faith in government. In praise of the benevolent overlords of health care, Wallis calls on us to believe in the liberal’s health care plan for miraculous healing. Like the healing ministry of Jesus, Wallis proclaims the federal government will save the poor from a woeful lack health care and poverty as well.

Actually, his latest sermon didn’t include deliverance from poverty by government or anyone else. The likely reason is that neither government bureaucrats nor big business has any plans of raising the poor out of the dependency on their big government savior. I doubt that Obama does either.

I know my comments seem to border on the edge of intolerant blasphemy, but consider Wallis’ words:

We are calling on people of faith to carry on the healing ministry of Jesus by making sure your political representatives understand that the faith community will be satisfied with nothing less than accessible, affordable health care for all Americans, built on a solid financial foundation. (emphasis added)

People of faith need to be the steady, moral drumbeat driving the debate and keeping our politicians accountable. This is a critical and long-overdue opportunity to fix a broken and inequitable system, which must not be derailed either by powerful special interests or by those, on any side, who just want to score political points. It is up to all of us to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Like Wallis, the United Methodist Church believes it is the government’s responsibility to provide all citizens with adequate health care. I have to ask; where in the Bible does it say that? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give liberal politicians in Washington the legal authority? Maybe they read the general welfare clause as being non-restrictive in such matters.

If so, why don’t they interpret it in a way that gives themselves the power to ensure that every working American earns a wage they can live on? It would be equitable for every working American to earn enough for a minimally independent life without welfare assistance. Isn’t it more important for individuals to earn enough to pay banks for a mortgage, pay GM for a new car every 3-5 years, to maintain clothing and housewares, to purchase government mandated new television and communication technologies, to buy healthy food, as well as adequate health care insurance?

The answer given by federal and state politicians as well as Wall Street funded corporations is NO unless you are fully dependent on Almighty Gov or on one of its Union bosses, AFL-CIO or NEA for example. One exception is if you have been blessed by fate with the right global market skills developed at the right university with a more marketable degree such science, computer technology, medicine, law, or business investment and marketing. Having been born or raised in the right family or have gained the right social connections helps too.

Wallis’ liberal propaganda jazzed up with religious hype makes right-wing theocrats look like Saint Theresa. At least she actually helped the poor, diseased, and the orphan. If as I suspect, Wallis is sincere in his effort to help the poor and needy; it appears he has wondered to far from the fold and has enter the den of wolves.

Jesus said, “The wolf comes to kill, to steal, and to destroy.” The gospel of government salvation has the serpent imprint. The glorious health care reform being evangelized to America will not only help those kept in poverty with paying for government’s health care insurance but it will insure the killing of the unborn and the useless elderly. The miracle healing promised by faith in government will also continue robbing many of an equitable income as well the freedom from the tyranny of dependency on government or quasi-governments such as Wall Street funded corporations. Many financial experts, economists, and even brave health professionals are claiming that the current government is destroying our economy, our better than all other national health care systems, and our future.

Jesus also said, “The truth will set you free.” The truth is Obama, liberals, and wayward Christians are not telling the truth. Read the dag-gone health bills and committee amendments. Then consider this: medical science can only assist the human body to heal itself. That is how God designed it. Only the Creator can actually heal the human body. He alone can reprogram the DNA or other aspects of mutated organisms that destroy normal human cells. Maybe one day, medical science will actually discover all of the Designer’s secrets, but until then, only faith in God for healing is warranted.

Sources: Sojourner, August 20, 2009; United Methodist Church News, August 19, 2009; John 10: 10; and John 8:32.

Advertisements

The State of America Under Obama in 2012 October 24, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Barak Obama, children, Christians, Democrats, economy, education, energy, family, freedom, gay politics, health care, military, news, politics, poverty, religion, second amendment, taxes, welfare.
comments closed

The following is a letter publish in the October 22 edition of CitizenLink Daily. Because of its length, only a few excerpts are displayed. To read the rest of the letter click on more.

This futurist letter projects what will likely result if American government is dominated by Democrats and led by Obama. The social milieu that will result will profoundly effect ever part of life in America. That is why the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage, religious free speech, abortion, pornography, gun ownership, education, military policy, terrorism, health care, taxes, poverty, and publishing are all covered in letter.

Probably, the current economic crisis is regarded by most Americans as the most important issue right now. That is the focus of the excerpt below.

October 22, 2012

Dear friends,

I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.

The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far left policies that had marked his entire previous career. They were wrong….

Many Christians who voted for Obama did so because they thought his tax policies were more fair and his “middle class tax cuts” would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis. But once he took office he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and the pattern of his own past record and asked Congress for a large tax increase. He explained that the deficit had grown so large under President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we simply couldn’t afford to cut taxes at the present time.

And several of Obama’s economic policies have hurt the poor most of all because they have decreased production, increased inflation, and increased unemployment. Here is what happened:

Taxes: Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains, corporations, and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has nearly doubled. The effect on the economy has been devastating. We have experienced a prolonged recession. Everybody has been hurt by this, but the poor have been hurt most of all. In dozens of cities there are just no jobs to be found.

It turns out that the people President Obama called “the rich” were mostly not all that rich. They were just ordinary people who worked hard, saved, and built small businesses that provided jobs and brought economic growth. They were the people who kept inventing new and better ways to produce things and bring prices down. They were the people whose companies produced the goods and services that gave us the highest standard of living in history of world. They were the people who provided the competition that kept prices of everything so low. And the top 50% of earners were already paying 97% of income taxes collected by the U.S. government in 2006.

President Obama increased their tax burden so much that many business owners decided they didn’t want to work any harder when the government was taking so much away. “The land of the free?” Not for the most productive workers in the American economy. Just as nearly two million citizens in the decade prior to 2008 had moved out of California and New York when the Democrats had control and kept raising state taxes, many of these entrepreneurs have now moved their money, their factories, and often themselves, overseas. So many jobs have been lost that welfare rolls have swelled, and President Obama is calling for more taxes to meet the needs of those without work.

However, Obama’s tax bill still included “tax credits” for the lowest 40% of earners, who were said to “need the most help.” Since the bottom 40% were not paying any Federal income taxes in the first place, these “tax cuts” were actually a gigantic redistribution of income, a huge welfare payment, a way to “spread the wealth around,”35 as Obama had told “Joe the Plumber” on October 13, 2008.

When critics objected that Obama’s tax policies were leading to inflation and unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America’s materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal.

Budget deficit: The Federal budget deficit has increased dramatically under President Obama, in spite of higher tax rates. It turned out that increasing tax rates on “the rich” did nothing to reduce the deficit because the economy shrank so much with reduced investment that the total dollars collected in taxes actually decreased, even though most people’s tax rate is now higher. As numerous economists had predicted, higher tax rates in practice meant that the government took in less money. When reporters asked Obama why he still favored higher taxes on the rich when it brought in no more money, he replied that it was important that the rich pay their fair share.

Union organizing: “The land of the free”? Congress passed in 2009, and President Obama quickly signed, a “card check” program that nullified the requirement for secret ballots when voting on whether workers wanted a union shop.36 Now the union simply has to get signatures from a majority of workers in any business, and unions around the country are now using strong-arm tactics to intimidate anyone who stands in their way. Several industries are now completely unionized and prices of goods produced by those industries have shot up as a result.

Energy: World demand for oil continues to climb, and prices keep going up, but President Obama for four years has refused to allow any additional drilling for oil in the United States or offshore. Gas now costs more than $7.00 per gallon, and many Democrats now openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output. But working Americans are hit especially hard by these costs.

Nuclear energy would provide a substitute for oil in some uses, and could generate electricity to power electric cars, but environmentalist legal challenges have prevented the construction of any new nuclear plants, and the courts have been leaning so far in a proenvironmentalist direction that nobody expects the construction of any new nuclear plants for several decades, if ever. Obama keeps reminding people that we cannot guarantee that it will be safe.

As for coal, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to implement strict new carbon emission standards that drove many coal-powered electric plants out of business. The country now has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation. The price of electricity has tripled in some places like California, which also faces rolling blackouts during peak energy periods. The impact on our economy, and on the comfort of our homes, has been devastating.

(more…)

Obama Support Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative, but only if it progressively becomes secular July 3, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Christians, faith, faith-based, fascism, Jews, Muslims, news, politics, poverty, religion, secularism, social services.
comments closed

How could any one criticize Obama’s sincere sup- port of religion. After all, he worked with churches   to help inner-city needy. Sarcasm aside, it is com- mendable that he was willing to get a little dirty by helping the needy. The same can be said of his supporters like the Nation of Islam. They have help quit a few people achieve moral and social reform. The appearance of supporting the many religious organization who live among the people they serve is commendable.

However, the Nation of Islam and all other faith-based social services have a something to be concerned about.

In an e-commentary written by someone at the Catholic League, the author points out that Obama intends to secularize the hiring practices of faith-based services.

“Any church or religious agency that agrees to take federal money on the condition that it must operate in a secular fashion—in hiring and in disseminating its values—is selling out. If Orthodox Jews running a day care center are not allowed to exclusively hire Orthodox Jews, there is nothing kosher about it. If a Catholic foster care program cannot place Catholic children with Catholic parents, it is doing a disservice to the children. If an evangelical drug rehab program can’t deliver a Christian message to its clients, it may as well close up shop. But that’s what Obama wants—he wants to secularize the religious workplace.

In secularizing the workforce at religion community service organizations, Obama would also make it possible for gays and like-minded people to further their sexual politics against the morality and faith of the religion; that is non- liberal religion. Remember, it is the Christian faith to which Obama says he is genuinely committed.

The Catholic author continued by mentioning Obama’s belief that religious social service are no better than government or secular non-profits at helping people in poverty, addiction, and many related problems. As for the secular non-profits, a majority of their employees are Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Protestants. Washington, DC gave a Christian non-profit, who lived and worked in the inner-city neighborhood serving mostly single-mothers and their child- ren, some large properties for a few dollars because they were much more effective at helping those people than government social services.

It proves that the government slogan “what works” is very apropos concerning faith-based social services.

In Obama’s winning multi-million dollar sermons, he has repeatedly identified his religion as progressive. Historically, progressives have been democrats, socialists, fascists, and non-classical liberals. Many of the founders in Congress are identified as classical liberals. FDR and his New Deal ideas and programs resembled those of fascists like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. Liberal churches and their theology are the born-again children of Germany’s pseudo-scientific ideas of its evolution-based higher criticism. Like George W. Bush’s accusers, they are more like wolves in sheep clothing, which may also apply to Obama. He talks the religious talk. His stories and preaching are wonderful. I image God is even impressed, but not deceived. When the billion dollar prize is Pres- idential power, the religion men and their financiers must be regarded with a salt shaker or two of skepticism. Looking closely at Obama religious rhetoric, I see the flip-side of Hitler who used Christian talk to woo and awe the masses into his lair. Talking religion and big-daddy provider of people’s welfare is a sure ticket to the heart, stomach, and iPod of many a voter. So is supporting faith-based socials services while overtly planning to destroy their basis of faith.

The Catholic author said, “Obama wants to gut the religious values and bar religious agencies from hiring people who share their religion.” This is partly correct. I think Obama would argue that religious agencies could hire people of their religion but not exclusively. It is his progressive inclusiveness that would destroy their exclusive religious values.

For all of these reasons more, “his initiative [and politics] is a fraud.”

Do Liberals Help the Needy? June 10, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, charity, conservative, Constitution, George W. Bush, giving, liberals, news, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), political economy, politics, poverty, Ron Paul, socialism, taxes, wealth, welfare.
add a comment

In a June 6 column published by The Economist, Peter Schweizer indicated that the richer and more powerful liberals are the harder it is for the needy to get any donations.

Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism. Garrison Keillor explains that “I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness.” But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it comes to making charitable donations, wrote Schweizer.

To back his claim, Schweizer presents a who’s who of liberal stars including New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Al Gore, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John Kerry, Senator Ted Kennedy, Robert Reich, and Jesse Jackson. None of these champions of the poor and oppressed has given much if anything at all to any charitable organization. Schweizer looked at their income tax returns and financial statements.

Kennedy has been in Congress since the 1960s. He is the most experienced champions of passing federal law to help the poor, which in turn has helped the federal government to expand it powers. The long debated No child Left Behind version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act apparently never helped to close any gap between the poor and the other students. The rhetoric about underachieving urban poor, dropouts, and our kids uncompetitive underachieving compared to the rest of the world is the same old song and dance liberals and opportunists have repeatedly said needs fixing since the 1960s. What it actually means is give government’s public schools more money and more control over public education to the federal government.

This is nothing new. According to Schweizer,

The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record when it comes to giving to charity.

Compared to liberals today, FDR was very generous. He actually gave 2-3% of his income compared to 0-1% given by the above-mentioned liberals.

The point is liberals are all talk. They don’t really care much about the poor. If they actually did, they not only would give generously to those in need but would also have changed the political economy making it difficult for poverty to exist. Of course, they would want to do that for several reasons: One, they don’t care about people they neither know nor want to know. Two, their power, prestige, and wealth is engendered at the expense of the poor. Three, actually changing the political economy would screw up the entire agenda of the Left.

Okay, liberals are no more generous are caring than many other Americans. So are we to believe the compassionate conservatives are any different? Schweizer’s answer is a resounding yes.

President Ronald Reagan … was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on. And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated … four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And, he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.

I suspect many of the reviled Right give considerable amounts of money to all sorts of charitable organizations, and not just to their churches. Referring to a Hudson Institute article, Ron Paul said,

American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise. (emphasis added.)

There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.

Besides sound research showing the 16th amendment to the Constitution was not legally ratified, our tax dollars should not be used to enlarge and empower the federal government at the expense of the poor or the rest of us. The federal government taking power not conferred upon them by the American people is not for our benefit. Robert Reich claims American major corporations are the real culprits impoverishing Americans. These economic leeches robbing Americans economic well-being make welfare programs necessary. In his book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg says the situation was planned by New Deal liberals.

The SCHIP of Power Drunk Democrats (and a Few Republicans Too) November 5, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in children’s health care, Democrats, George W. Bush, Medicare/Medicaid, news, politics, poverty, power, Republicans, SCHIP, socialism, welfare.
add a comment

Congress is worse than any lame duck president they would like to create. Democrats are drunk with power and intend to rip off the poor to bless the middle class with more welfare dependency. They have created a more socialist version of a conservative bill they know most Republicans and the President will not accept. Worse, they are completely unwilling to compromise. SCHIP was a welfare program to help poor and low-income families provide insurance for their children. Democrats want it available to middle-income families many of which already have health insurance. Democrats want adults covered under their version. The bill disallows adult coverage but then proceeds to give states the option of continuing adult coverage. Democrats want illegal immigrants covered as well.

Democrats and some Republicans apparently think Americans are stupid. They expect those poor Americans whose children need SCHIP to pay for what they cannot afford. (more…)

Another SCHIP, Another Veto, Another Failure to Address the Real Problem October 25, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in children’s health care, Constitution, Democrats, family, George W. Bush, living wage, Nancy Pelosi, news, politics, poverty, Republicans, SCHIP.
6 comments

Democrats passed their new State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill yesterday. If it passes the Senate, President Bush has already promised to veto it. The following is a summary of his reasons:

  1. “The Democrats’ new legislation continues to cover children in families earning more than $62,000 per year (300 percent of the Federal poverty level).”
  2. “The Democrats’ new legislation continues to allow States to avoid covering poor children first.”
  3. “The Democrats’ new legislation continues to raise taxes to move 2 million children covered by private health insurance onto government-run programs with fewer choices and longer lines.”
  4. “The Democrats’ new legislation continues to allow SCHIP to cover ineligible individuals.” According to House Republican Conference analysis, the new legislation also raises the age of eligibility from 19 to 21. It still fails to prevent adults including those without children. Democrats claimed the new bill would prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits, but no citizenship test is actually required.
  5. “The Democrats’ new legislation shifts more responsibility to the Federal government.”

According to the House Republican Conference, SCHIP also employs a budget gimmick in order to comply with pay-as-you-go. From 2008-2012, funding levels will increase to more than $8.4 billion a year, then after 2012, the funding level will drop off to only $600 million in 2013. CBO previously reported that this type of budget gimmick will cause 6.5 million children to lose their SCHIP coverage by 2017. In addition, CBO indicated it will cost an extra $40 billion to allow these children to continue on SCHIP.

The House Republican Conference also claims the bill “increases the rate of excise taxes … on tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes.”

This increases the tax on:

  • Cigars from 20.719% to 53% with a $3 per cigar cap;
  • (more…)

Liberal SCHIP Sinking Liberty October 17, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in children, children’s health care, Constitution, Democrats, First Amendment, George W. Bush, illegal immigrants, law, living wage, Nancy Pelosi, news, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), politics, poverty, Republicans, SCHIP, Separation of Church and State, truth, welfare.
1 comment so far

Christians have organized to overturn President Bush’s veto of State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Among those high stepping to the liberal bleep against Pres. Bush are liberal leaning Rev. Jim Wallis, Rev. Hayward Wiggins, spokesman for PICO National Network and the National Council of Churches. It is great that Christians can mobilize for a good cause. Just a couple of elections ago, America voted in a conservative Congress along with Pres. Bush by just such a mobilization. However, the current mobilization is more about perpetuating the liberal agenda than it is about helping needy children. (more…)