A Tough Choice but One We Have to Make

This election is, without a doubt, the hardest to stomach in my lifetime.  Aside from the bitter debate and rhetoric, the two major party candidates do not appeal to me.  It makes one ask “Could we not have done better than this?”  And yet, in a way these two candidates reflect who we are as a country.  From the say and do anything to get ahead, the corruption and lack of respect for the rule of law of the democrat nominee, to the brash, arrogant, disrespectfulness of the republican nominee, this is who we’ve become.  While we cry out for better candidates, we need to become a better people.

Still, we must make a decision.  It’s one I’ve wrestled with, but have reached a conclusion.  Let me say that I understand if you decide simply not to vote.  I considered it for a while, even voting 3rd party.  But allow me to make the case that one presidency will be better for the country than the other, and significantly so.  And as such, I encourage you to cast a vote.

Whether we want to believe it or not, the Supreme Court has become as important as the Presidency.  Liberals have found a way to put into law that which the elected representatives of the people would reject, and that is through the courts.  That is why it is of utmost importance for justices to be nominated who will interpret law by the Constitution, rather than make law that they feel is right.  With an expected 3-4 Supreme Court nominees, we are looking at swaying the country’s future in two very different directions based on who will make those nominations.

While Donald Trump has promised to nominate justices who adhere to the Constitution, Hillary Clinton has made no secret that she will nominate those who would actively seek to make law, and only those who adhere to the pro-abortion position.

This ties into my second main concern.

A Clinton presidency would ensure that abortion remains settled law for another generation.  I’m not saying a Trump presidency would necessarily mean a reversal of Roe vs. Wade, but that possibility would at least exist.  We know that it wouldn’t with a Clinton presidency.

A liberally packed Supreme Court could very well strike down every state restriction on abortion, if the recent Texas case is an indication. All the small gains the pro-life movement has made over the last 40 years would be gone.  And millions of innocent children would continue to be killed in the womb every year.  Is this something you are comfortable with?  As for me, I cannot sit by and allow that to happen.

Another concern is over the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email use and the practices of her and her husband’s charity.  Though the FBI has said their investigation is finished, they were outspoken that she was extremely careless in handling classified information, and that she lied to the American people on multiple occasions regarding the investigation.  Here is a short clip illustrating this.

Someone so dishonest, who will lie to your face, and who has been involved in numerous scandals throughout her public life is not someone I want to be President.

Donald Trump is not a man I really wish to see become President.  From his character, his past, his temperament and more, I would really rather not support him.  His opponent, however, is one I feel would be far worse as a President.  So, what do I do?

Daniel Darling wrote an excellent article on why Christians should vote.  He made two outstanding points on this very issue.  The first is that voting does not mean that you’re putting “your full faith and power in a candidate or movement.”

“We vote, not because we believe our man or woman will usher in the Kingdom, but because we are fulfilling a God-given stewardship.”

And at a time when neither candidate truly appeals to many of us, he reminds us that:

“even in the best election with the most inspiring of choices, we are choosing between two fallen sinners. Every election is about the lesser of two evils.”

Folks, it is this simple: if we lose the Supreme Court, we will lose our freedoms as well.  So I encourage you: vote.  And not just for President.  Vote for the court.  Vote for unborn lives.  But vote.


The Search

It was an unexpected discovery.  Definitely not something I had imagined writing a blog post about.  Well, at least not what I originally set out to look for on Google.  But maybe I should have.  And maybe this was just what I needed to make me decide to put this out there.

This is going to be two stories in one.  The first should be the most powerful and garner the most attention.  However, it will likely be the latter that will do so.  Let me explain.

Two weekends ago I was sitting on the porch relaxing, when I remembered a story I heard several years ago about a man who had lost his voice because of an illness that attacked his vocal cords.  His prognosis was not good, and he anticipated being without a voice for a long time, if not the rest of his life.  The man was a Christian, who had been a pastor and was forced to leave that position because he was unable to preach any longer due to his voice.  It was some time later that his new church’s Sunday School class asked him to teach the lesson one morning.  After being very hesitant, he agreed, and with the help of a special microphone was able to emit enough sound that the class could hear and understand him.  The class taped each week’s lesson to give to those who were sick or otherwise unable to attend.  It was during this lesson that the former pastor’s voice was completely healed – in mid-sentence!  He was teaching on Psalm 103, about God’s incredible power to heal.  Not that He always heals our physical ailments, but He is able and is sovereign.  And He did heal this man in awe-striking fashion, and on tape for many to hear!

Here is the story with the actual audio recording.  Check it out- it will give you goose bumps!

Ok, so a pretty cool story, right?  What in the world could be the 2nd story I referenced?  It centers on how I found the story on the pastor.  I couldn’t remember his name, nor many of the details, but I did recall that I had heard the story on a Focus on the Family radio program.  So I typed this search into Google: “Focus on the Family Sunday School teacher voice healed as he spoke”.

I didn’t find what appeared to be any helpful links on the first two pages and was about to try a different search term when I happened to glance at the “related searches” section at the bottom of the page.  I couldn’t believe my eyes.  Here were things Google told me were related to what I searched for:

Homosexuality in the church both sides of the debate
Homosexuality in the church today
How should the church deal with homosexuality
Gays in church leadership
Pastors who accept homosexuality
Mega pastor comes out
Megachurch pastor comes out of the closet
Homosexuality in the church statistics

“What in the world?!?” I thought as I read them.  Incredulously, I slowly moved to the search bar to change my search term, and as I began to make my revision, I looked at the autocomplete results that populated, and they included four of the same things I just listed.

Now, I don’t have to tell you that these things have absolutely nothing to do with what I searched for.  So why in the world would Google suggest them?  Why, indeed.  If they were a collection of random search terms even loosely related to my query, I could dismiss it as either a fluke, or that my search just didn’t match much of what others before me had searched for.  But these suggestions obviously all had something in common.

This was agenda-driven.  There is no way you can convince me that these suggestions were organic.  People searching for the story of God’s miraculous healing of a pastor’s voice are not at the same time searching for churches and pastors that embrace homosexuality.  No, this was bias, plain and simple.  And it is certainly not unheard of for Google.  You may have seen the recent credible accusations by one media outlet of Google’s manipulation of search results to benefit Hillary Clinton.  But I don’t think this really ought to be such a surprise.  Google is widely considered to be a very left-leaning company; and companies – and even search algorithms – are controlled by people.  People who have their own opinions, ideas, goals and political leanings.

Manipulation of public opinion by information sources that people trust should not shock us.  It’s what the mainstream media has been doing for years.  It’s just that we’ve come to rely so heavily on things like search engines that we may not notice the subtlety with which they attempt to shape our opinion.   And so, I say again, be on guard and check things out for yourself.  Do not blindly trust any source of information, be it the news, talk shows, comedy shows or even search engines.  The truth is discoverable for anyone who truly wishes to find it.  Do you?

With that, let’s return to the original story for a moment.  Such an awesome and inspiring event is not one you hear about every day.  But the truth of this man’s story, and the story of the One he credits for his healing is out there, too.  It’s one you can find if you are willing to search for it.  And it is far more valuable than any political information ever could be.

“The Program”

What would you say about a proposed program that would take money from the poor and use it to fund college scholarships for middle class kids?  Now wait a minute and hear me out.  The results of this program could be really good.  For instance, what if I told you it would help make sure millions of kids could get needed scholarships to further their education?  Kids that would have had to take out loans otherwise, and who knows how long it would have taken them to pay it back.  “But, taking money from the poor?!” You might say.

Well, what if I told you that this program to take money from the poor and give it to the middle class would not be forced on anyone, but be completely voluntary?  The government would not take money by force from the poor and pass it on.  They would do it voluntarily.  You’re probably shaking your head and thinking I’m nuts.  “That would NEVER happen!”

Now, what if I told you this program is already in place, is accepted and even celebrated by society?  This “program” that annually takes millions from the poor to fund college for the middle class has a name: The Lottery.

Statistics show that the vast majority of money spent on the lottery comes from those with the least amount to spare.  Dave Ramsey describes it this way: “The lottery is a tax on poor people and people who can’t do math.”  It is a scheme that makes a huge amount of money for the people who set it up, while helping to keep the poor from rising from poverty.  On its face, it is insidious, even despicable.  Which is why the lottery folks give so much of it to a cause people find noble: education, and why they make such a big deal about it.

I recently heard a commercial talking about how successful the “program” has been in one particular state, how much money it has raised for education, and how much good it has done.  “Everybody wins!” the commercial said.  Except the poor, who gave up money they couldn’t afford in hopes of getting out of their circumstance.  At the end, the ad gave a slogan:  “Encouraging imagination, furthering education.”  Imagination that by gambling what little you have that you’ll strike it rich.  How sad.

The “program” is real.  But it doesn’t have to continue.  Think we can do better than such a “program”?  Me too.

Plans and Promises

When I first heard President Obama say, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan,” I did a double take. Because when a politician begins to say things like that, you’d better take notice, and be on guard. My first thought was, “I’m sorry, what right does he have to say whether I can or can’t keep my health insurance?” Further, “What business is it of his what my health insurance looks like?” But then I began to look into that claim and found that it was not going to be true for a whole lot of people.

So when the news began to break last month that many, many people are not able to keep their health insurance plans, I was not surprised. Because – and this is key – I actually read the what the law said. I didn’t just rely on talking points or media spin; I read the actual law. And I saw that it directed health insurance companies to nix policies that changed after the law was passed (and what policy never changes year to year?). I saw that many Americans’ health insurance plans would be canceled, specifically due to the Affordable Care Act. I read the estimates by government agencies that predicted scores of millions would lose their coverage and be forced into the Obamacare exchanges. It was all right there. I was aghast that so many seemed to not believe it or not care. That was until now.

But since people are now beginning to notice and to speak up, since they are losing the coverage they liked and wished to keep, let us take a look at what the President promised, and what he is saying today. And I dare say that you should be frightened by what you see from the most powerful man in the country.

I must pause here to make an appeal to those who are supporters of the President. Perhaps you voted for him. Perhaps you are a democrat who thinks Mr. Obama is a good leader. Please allow me to ask of you a simple question: Do you have the courage to disagree with him? I ask this because I faced a similar challenge during the Bush years. I was a Bush supporter, who twice voted for him, and generally agreed with him. But there were things he did that I had to have the courage to look at and to say, “No, that’s not right.” Will you look into it? Do you have the courage to speak up and to say, “This is not right”?

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” said President Obama in 2010. Sounds pretty straight forward. Sounds simple to understand. It does not sound ambiguous. In fact, the President repeated this claim so often that he seemed angry that he had to keep saying it, that anyone would be skeptical. And he said this for a reason. Polls showed the vast majority of people liked their health insurance, and it would be reasonable that they would resist a plan that told them up front they would lose their coverage and be forced into a more expensive plan.

Thing is, the President – and the entire administration – knew this wasn’t true. Because, well, it was written into the law. But do you expect a sitting President to ever say to the nation, “I lied to you”? No, what they will do is spin. The lines from the White House now include:
“Oh no, you’re not having your policy cancelled. You’re getting an upgrade!”
“We didn’t cancel your insurance, those mean insurance companies did.”
And probably the worst is what the President himself recently said:
“If you had or have one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really like that plan, what we said was, you could keep it… if it hasn’t changed since the law’s passed.”

No sir, you didn’t. What you said was, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

I won’t discuss here why I think President Obama said what he did, and why his party wrote the law as they did – that is a subject that deserves much more space and a lot of care. But what I will say is what I’ve said many times. Go check things out for yourself, and don’t rely on what the media – or even a President – tells you.

Critical Thought

Stuart Shepard adds some insights to the aforementioned Dave Ramsey video in this short Stoplight. And he cites a couple of points I’ve run into in debating with people about the healthcare law. Sadly, people who I know are intelligent, almost seem to cover their ears to the opposition when it comes to Obamacare. Is it because they just don’t want to hear anything that might change their mind? Or is it because deep down they know there are big problems on the horizon, and don’t want to admit it? I trust that if you’re reading this, you are open to new information and critical thought. And especially if you tend to disagree with me, please consider what Dave and Stuart have to say.


You may have seen this video recently on social networks or blogs.  Dave Ramsey lays out a very reasonable, rational explanation of what Obamacare is going to do to insurance rates.  And he does what I seek to do, but oftentimes fall short of.  He doesn’t start with the political angle.  He looks at an issue critically and describes what he sees will be the logical result.  Such is what I have been trying to do in telling others of Obamacare’s effects on their lives and the country.  Putting aside the political ramifications, this law will do incredible harm to people, even those we claim to want to help.  It’s not a political argument.  It’s simple math.

The disaster is almost here

Do you have health insurance? You will soon be required by law to have it. And its cost may be more than you can afford to pay.

Beware of government promises, and promises by politicians seeking your vote. Those promises have a funny way of evaporating before you get what you thought you would. And don’t we usually decry this? We disparage smooth talking politicians who make promises they cannot possibly deliver. Yet we continue to believe them, and to elect them.

I believe we are headed for a disaster very soon because of Obamacare. As people begin to realize that the law says they must buy health insurance or pay a fine, and as the cost of insurance continues to rise, the economy will take a major hit. As the economy slows down, more people will be out of work, yet still be required to buy insurance.

I know there are many who have the absolute best of intentions when it comes to their support of the “Affordable Care Act.” They genuinely care about helping the poor and needy, and they think laws like this will help. But my contention from the time this bill was being debated is that it will do far more damage to those less fortunate, to the sick, to the elderly, and even to the middle class than it will ever do to help them.

Some saw problems with our healthcare system and automatically believed that any proposed fix would be a good one. Especially one that supposedly promises to provide health insurance to those who don’t have it. But Obamacare doesn’t do that. It simply says you have to buy health insurance. “If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house,” argued…Barack Obama during the 2008 democrat primary. “In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can’t afford [health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance, and they’re paying a fine…” And he had a good argument. Yet this is the centerpiece of his own healthcare law, its funding mechanism, and the chief reason the law was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court last summer.

And the scenario Mr. Obama pointed out in Massachusetts will be happening across the country, as many will lose their existing health insurance plan from their employer. Either through having their hours cut to part-time or through their employer dropping coverage, many will have to go to the exchanges, where they may or may not be able to afford to buy. Should they not buy, they must pay a fine, and now they are – as our President said – “worse off than they were”.

To be fair, there will be some who will be helped by the law; some whose situations will – in the short term at least – be improved. But the reason I opposed the bill, and why I still support the law’s repeal, is that the bad will far outweigh the good. In a nut shell:

– It will dramatically drive up the cost of insurance for families already struggling to make ends meet.
– It will result in many people’s jobs being cut to part time or eliminated entirely.
– It will result in less available care and poorer quality care for Americans.
– It will cause the rationing of care, meaning many sick or elderly will be denied access to healthcare that could improve their quality of life, or save it entirely.

We have already seen the first two in action. Companies across the nation have been cutting employees’ hours to avoid the heavy cost of Obamacare. I personally know a young man whose hours were cut in half directly because of the law. And the cost of insurance is going through the roof. President Obama often likes to cite individuals’ situations when showing why laws he’s signed are good things. I’d like to cite one family’s current situation.

Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, KY are a middle class family with two boys. Because of Obamacare, their premiums are tripling next year, from a little more than $300 a month to nearly $1,000 a month. And their plan includes a high deductible, meaning they are assuming a good amount of risk as it is. Now they are going to have to find a way to cut over $600 from their budget each month just to afford the insurance that the law now says they must have. May I ask, could you afford an extra $600 a month out of your pay check?

As this kind of situation happens more over the country in the coming days, can you imagine the affect it will have on the economy?

In a move to limit costs, many insurance companies are beginning to limit the number doctors a patient can see. This gives less freedom to patients and limits their options.

And finally, Obamacare created the a bureaucracy known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). These 15 people have been given the power to essentially say what care can be given to whom, and by default what care can be withheld from whom. Simply put, these will be the people in charge of health care rationing. The ones that will be affected most by this horrible system are the most vulnerable: the sick and the elderly. Even advisers to the President have been public in their call for these “death panels” (as they call them) as part of a solution to the high cost of healthcare. I think it is despicable for the government to have the power to deny someone life saving or life improving care.

Why do so many oppose this law? It’s not because we’re just meanies who don’t want to help the poor. On the contrary, we see this disaster making many more people poor, and keeping the ones who are already poor from getting out. Get prepared, this could be a very rough ride.