Yesterday I read an article at CNET, excerpted below, that noted some churches were putting GPS devices in the "baby Jesus-es" they use in their nativity scenes to help find him if he was stolen:
It's Christmas.
The time of year when we all love our fellow human a little more. The time of year when we consider the spiritual aspects of our lives (or their lack).
And the time of year when people steal baby Jesus figurines from nativity scenes in churches.
As MyFoxDC reports, a security company has leaped to the rescue of churches frustrated that their Jesus, Mary, or Joseph are taken by the unscrupulous.
Brickhouse Security is giving free GPS trackers to all qualifying churches in order to prevent such an unholy occurrence.
My initial thought was that this was just another means of defense churches and Christians are using in the proverbial "war on Christmas", and in some ways it is. But, I think it provides another message for us as well. These churches are placing GPS devices in "Jesus" so that in case He gets stolen or lost, He can be found. It is almost the opposite message Christ brought to earth. In reality, Jesus will never be the one lost, but we are. He is the one who finds us, when we earnestly seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).
The world will celebrate the birth of Jesus on Wednesday. We don't know the exact date Jesus was born, although it likely was not December 25th. We do know, however, why He came--divine, yet choosing humanity-- to seek and save those who are lost (Luke 19:10). Churches are now resorting to technology to "find Jesus" if he is lost, but the truth is that He always had a GPS purpose to fulfill, not because He gets lost, but because He came to save us who are lost.
In the midst of the Obamacare exchange website debacle and the employer mandate lawsuits, other problems with the law and its rollout have gotten lost in the shuffle or at least lost in the rhetoric. The "death panel", as Governor Palin termed bureaucrats charged with rationing of care in a government led health system, once was deemed the "lie of the year". Since then, numerous Democrats and pundits have admitted that rationing will occur under the law and have called for repeal of that portion of the law.
The "death panel" or the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is really quite Orwellian Newspeak in its name, as it is neither independent nor advisory in nature. To put it in simpler terms, let's say that every American is given a piece of birthday cake when they turn 65 years old. Sounds nice, right? In reality, a group of bureaucrats decide how big and what kind of a cake is made each year, regardless of how many people it needs to feed or how hungry people are, and it takes a heck of a lot of political will and consensus between the President and Congress to change how the cake is baked and apportioned. However, this is not something as frivolous as birthday cake. It's healthcare that older Americans have funded with their own tax money for years.
But who is this group of cake rationers?
Right now it is one lady from Kansas--Kathleen Sebelius--as President Obama has not appointed anyone to the board yet. However, IPAB members will be appointed in the future.Additionally, with the new Senate rules instituted recently, this board will be easier to appoint. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, who has criticized the IPAB extensively over the last few years, wrote in Forbes recently :
...The nuclear option enables the president to fill this 15-member panel. But it has absolutely zero effect on the president’s ability to use IPAB. That’s because the PPACA provides that if the president fails to nominate anyone to sit on this panel, or if the Senate fails to confirm anyone, then all of IPAB’s powers fall into the hands of…Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Obama doesn’t need to nominate anyone to IPAB. He can exercise more control over that super-legislature, with less political risk, by not nominating anyone and letting Sebelius act as a super-legislature unto herself.
What does this mean for the IPAB? It means that there is the potential for Democrats to have control of the "independent" board through 2020 as Cannon writes in a later post.
What can this board of one or fifteen do? As Cannon and his colleague Diane Cohen wrote in their policy analysis last year:
When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court…
IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not…IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.
The IPAB is not only unethical; it is also unconstitutional. The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the federal government regarding the IPAB in August of 2010. Their suit was dismissed in December of 2012, but they have appealed and will argue before the Ninth Circuit Court on January 28th, 2014. The Goldwater Institute claims that the law "exceeds the powers of Congress and violates individual rights as well as violates the Separation of Powers doctrine". They also charge that the IPAB specifically and the law as a whole violates the fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments:
• The end result of the health care law will be that people won’t have the freedom to choose the doctors and health care treatments they want. Between the mandate to buy only government-approved insurance plans and a new presidentially appointed panel that will be free to set Medicare policy and health care payment rates with no meaningful congressional oversight and without the possibility of judicial review, people will have their options gradually restricted. The health care law violates each American’s constitutional right to make their own decisions about their personal health care as protected by the Ninth Amendment.
• The federal health care law requires insurance companies to accept every customer, regardless of any pre-existing conditions. To enforce that provision, the law requires Americans to turn over their most intimate medical records to their insurance company or another third-party for possible review by the federal government. This invasion of medical privacy contradicts federal protections in health privacy laws and violates the Fourth Amendment’s promise to “be secure in their persons.”
The Ninth Circuit Court is notorious for being Left-leaning, but IPAB death panel may indeed meet its very own death panel--either in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. So much for the "death panel" being either non-existent or a lie. Now the questions become--1) will enough Democrats admit its failure to repeal it 2) will Republicans win enough elections and gain enough spine to repeal the whole law 3) will the courts ironically become the death of the panel itself?
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
The above excerpt comes from President Washington's farewell speech\. This speech has come to mind multiple times during Washington DC's latest act of political theater. Those words may have been spoken 217 years ago, but they are just as relevant today as they were then. In the meantime, our nation has gone deeper and deeper in debt. The last time we did not have debt as a nation was during President Jackson's tenure (in 1835). Our debt has waxed and waned over the years, but nonetheless, it continues to climb.
Why haven't our leaders taken to heart President Washington's words? They have not cherished the public credit. They have abused it--both parties. Both parties have decried raising the debt ceiling when their party is not in the White House while raising the debt ceiling seemingly without question when their party is in power. Washington believed that preserving the public credit means that debt should be incurred in rare circumstances. He also believed that the only times its should be utilized in during "unavoidable wars" as to not burden future generations.
However, just weeks ago our government was poised to get involved in a battle between two evils in Syria--clearly an avoidable war that would require billions in spending. Rhetorical battles continue to be waged in Congress over Obamacare--legislation that is poised to add billions to our national debt. Other rhetorical battles are being fought over a resolution to fund a bloated, yet currently supposedly shutdown government and to raise the debt ceiling yet again.
In the midst of all these threats of avoidable and political rhetorical battles, there has been a neglect of those who have fought in true battles to preserve the strength and security of which President Washington spoke. During the shutdown of our bloated government, memorials honoring the fallen have been barricaded, benefits to families of the fallen have been threatened, and bodies of the fallen have not been shown proper respect. Some of these things have been rectified--either by politicians trying to save face or by the veterans themselves.
Earlier today during the worship service I participated in with my church family, a man--a veteran-- got up to give a brief message before we partook of communion. He spoke of the sacrifice of both Jesus and American soldiers-- one man who died to save our souls and the many men and women who died to protect our freedom. He noted a quote that one of his co-workers has as an e-mail signature that reads something like this "there are only two entities who have given their lives for you expecting nothing in return". This, of course, alludes to both Christ and American soldiers.
We owe Christ a debt of gratitude that of course we can never repay. We owe American soldiers a debt of gratitude that we can poorly attempt to repay. Our political leaders must heed President Washington's word about cherishing the public credit. We should not continue accruing debt for bloated government, temporary programs that become permanent, and an ever list of increasing agencies, departments, and bureaus. Our only debt should be to those who have given of themselves to protect the freedom we have in this nation. A freedom that diminishes every time we add to a monetary debt rather than a humble debt of gratitude.
It seems that often in politics--at least with our media--political views are too often dichotomized rather than seen on a continuum or through the lens of circumstances. The recent discussion of likely intervention in Syria has been a fascinating display of this common practice of categorizing political views into tidy categories for intellectually incurious journalists and commentators. These individuals try to pigeon hole people as either isolationists or neo-conservatives, doves or hawks, etc. These are false choices. Those who want America to be secure and strong without being the world's policeman are neither isolationists "doves" or neo-conservative "hawks". Such individuals could be better defined as by our very own national bird--the eagle. An eagle is neither a docile dove, nor a hawk, or even a vulture, which seems to characterize some who think that America must be involved in every civil war or skirmish throughout the world. An eagle is a strong, noble bird, who is both territorial and protective of its interests.
Eagles are known for being territorial when nesting, aiming to keep other eagles out of their area. They only leave their nest to build another nest if they feel threatened. The male and (mostly) the female eagles take turns sitting on the eggs to protect them from squirrels and other animals. Furthermore, because of their great size, "eagles often ignore the mobbing behavior of smaller birds".
American foreign policy should be seen in the same way. Eagles protect their own territory and their own interests only. They protect themselves and their interests--their future generations--by staying at home to protect. They are not like hawks or vultures swooping down preying on any opportunity to "intervene" to pad their own political pocketbooks. They are not doves who won't intervene even when they are truly being threatened. When they are being threatened, they act in overwhelmingly, quickly, and with great strength. Look no further than the philosophy of Ronald Reagan during his presidency and the five point approach suggested by Governor Sarah Palin just a few years ago.
Which prompted Reagan to eventually write out a set of four principles. Four principles, he would write in his memoirs, that were specifically designed “to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents.”
Here they are:
Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)
Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
Third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.
Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.
Like the eagle, America is strong and should seek to protect its own interests. This does not include potentially siding with the very evil that killed thousands of Americans twelve years ago on American soil this week or those who trained the jihadists who killed four Americans in Benghazi last year this week. This does not excuse the evils perpetrated by Assad, but there is no need to choose sides in a civil war between two evils.
The Obama administration is touting a youth video contest to promote Obamacare. I'm not considered a youth anymore, but I'm on the "old" end of the Milennial generation. I figure that means I can make a submission or two to "promote" Obamacare. Close enough, right? Heck, if Karl Rove can do it, so can I. The only problem is--I cannot decide which part of Obamacare to "promote". I have five ideas:
3. Those fun death panels that youth will eventually have to face (if Medicare is not bankrupt by then). It is kind of like the your very own board of Count Rugens and his "machine":
"Older Americans are using technology more and more frequently", the President said, " this new new device will allow for healthcare to be more efficient by allowing patients to know whether or not they will be able to receive treatment before they even leave the house".
Some major components of his healthcare plan have or potential will be delayed, including business mandates and some information technology based aspects of the law. However, other parts of the law he has chosen to implement more quickly. The new Apple iPAB was introduced through a new executive order from the President.
With this executive order, rather than appointing member to the Independent Payment Advisory Board to be confirmed by the Senate, the President has ordered that this board be replaced by Siri.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated in a press release that seniors will simply have to ask Siri, "will Medicare cover my blood pressure medication?". Using already collected personal data from the NSA and IRS, Siri will be able to quickly determine whether or not a patient will be rationed whatever particular medication or procedure they have queried. This is will save patients the hassle of having to go the doctor, which, subsequently will help reduce carbon emissions from travel.
Vice President Joe Biden has been tasked with Beta testing the new iPAB and has run into some minor issues after he shot the iPAB with a shotgun after he consistently mistyped his passcode. " God love, Siri. You know what they say, 'an apple a day--an iPAB-- keeps the doctor away'. Barack and I want to make sure that's true".
Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin has denounced the iPAB as a digital death panel that continues to give too much power to the federal government and rations care.
Note: This is simply satire. Please read it as such.
On Thursday, CNN reported that nearly three dozen CIA agents were on the ground during the attacks at the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012. Additionally, the Obama administration is subjecting many of these individuals to very frequent polygraph tests (and changing Benghazi survivors' names). These revelations beg two questions. One--why is the Obama administration subjecting agents to what Jake Tapper's source is calling an "unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out" if this is simply a phony scandal? Of course, that is a rhetorical question. Second--why were so many CIA agents in Benghazi at the time?
On Thursday night, Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf indicated that the CIA was moving guns in Benghazi, per Breitbart News:
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns?” asked Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a sub-committee chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Wolf also wonders what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi on that night. Stevens and three others were killed over the course of the attacks.
“Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria," Wolf told Breitbart News on Thursday. "Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis?"
"Nobody knows, so I think there are so many questions from the failure to respond to where the guns went,” he stated.
Wolf is currently attempting to create a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack by launching a discharge petition from committee. He needs 218 signatures to take the issue to a vote on the floor.
In January, Senator Rand Paul asked then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if guns were being run to Turkey from Libya, which she did not answer, but deferred to the CIA (see the 2:17 mark):
About that same time, the CIA denied that guns were being run from Libya through Turkey to Syria.
To look at this more completely, we must take a step back. It was an absolute failure of security to not have more protection at a consulate in an Islamist country on a date with such significance as September 11th, especially with the threats and violence that had already occurred in Libya in the previous months. Remember too that in August 2011, Gaddafi was overthrown. A dictator was defeated, and a country in a volatile region of the world was even more unstable. When that happened, Governor Palin warned (emphasis added):
Finally, we must make sure that terrorist groups don’t try to co-opt the revolution, as Al Qaeda is trying to do in Syria. We should continue to use our intelligence assets to monitor the situation in Libya to ensure that potentially dangerous weapons are secured, and that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don’t gain a foothold in Libya.
The President has often touted that bin Laden is dead and that al Qaeda is decimated. He has cheered the death of Gaddafi. While these three things help rid the world of evil, only two of them are true. Al Qaeda seems to still be very much active. On Friday, the State Department issued worldwide travel warnings for the entire month of August because of al Qaeda threats. US Embassies are closed this Sunday (President Obama's birthday) throughout the world including places like Iraq and Egypt.If a terror network was truly decimated, there would be no need to take caution over their threats.
It is phony reasoning to suggest that the death of two evil men means the death of an entire network of evil. It is phony leadership to not heed real warnings of the potential for evil and to intimidate those who were survivors of such evil by subjecting them to polygraph tests in an attempt to silence them. The only ones who should be subjected to such tests are those who claim the death of four brave Americans is solely a "phony scandal".
