Skunks in the Chicken House!

What is a United States Senator doing sticking his nose in somewhere I don't think it yet belongs. Why is a senator trying to disrupt the vote that is first set and truly should first come forward in the House? No, really! Why? I don't get it.

Senator Rand Paul started his attention seeking theatrics weeks ago. He was dead set to paint the new healthcare bill as something disastrous. He was the first one to call it "Obamacare Light", wasn't he? Well, he was successful in bringing the damage he sought. The bill failed and he couldn't be happier. What was that all about? Why wasn't he working to make the bill something more successful, instead of aggressively fighting it every step of the way?

The Freedom Caucus (conservative members of the House) was very influential and indeed successful in getting some important changes to the bill. If the citizens had been educated about those changes, they surely would have wanted their representatives to support it. But I just don't think people understood. The misinformation out there that comments on social media reveal is unbelievable. I do understand why it was so difficult though. I really, really had to work at finding the correct information. It was terribly confusing. I was beginning to think no one understood.

But aligning themselves with Democrats, those that think of themselves as the most conservative members are, in fact, the ones that caused this bill to fail. It was extremely disappointing for me, because many of these conservatives are usually the people I like to support. But for them, the bill simply wasn't "pure' enough so they voted "no". They wanted it their way or the highway. They wanted it all or nothing. But actually, when does 100% ever work in government? It doesn't, and it never has. They were successful in making it look like it was only the efforts of the evil RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) who were pushing this bill forward and seeking passage. That simply isn't the case. I am tired of the intended division that is caused by name-calling and finger-pointing. The truth is, in my opinion, is that the members that voted "no", were far more concerned that they would lose their legislative seats, than passing this legislation. That fear seems to have controlled them and appeared more important to them than taking the time to educate their constituents about what the bill entailed. Politics before what is best for our nation.

There is no one that understands Constitutional Law with a Christian perspective better than Jay Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice. They came out in support of this bill. On Friday before the vote, Jay and his son, Jordan, did an excellent live review of the law and the reasons they supported it. It made more sense than anything I have seen, read, or heard. You can view it here and I recommend it to everyone.

 

Here is a quick break down in terms of the bill that someone as simple minded as me can understand:

• It got rid of the individual mandate.
• It got rid of the employer mandate.
• It put things back in state control.
• It rolled back taxes. This would have been repealed and taxes RETURNED!
• It eliminated the issues that were a problem for businesses like Hobby Lobby.
• It eliminated funding of Planned Parenthood.
• It would have helped the economy!

Many people have said they were concerned about the apparent rush to push the bill through the House. They lamented that it was happening so fast. But there was a reason for that. Federal funding comes up in April. Now that this bill has failed, Planned Parenthood will once again be funded. The passage of this bill would have prevented that funding and time was of the essence.

The points in the above list are the simple terms that are important to me. These are the facts that I can relate to and figure out for myself. Below is a post I took from Facebook. It is written by someone that knows a whole heck of a lot more than me. I am sorry I did not get his name. He has outlined the bill and the three phases it was designed to reach in more official terms. He demonstrates what was to happen in each of the three phases that would have occurred had this first phase passed. This is what the gentleman wrote:

"Bottom line you and other Freedom Caucus members only want to repeal Obamacare with no replacement. That will require 60 votes in the Senate.

Executive summary of what you did not support:

The Three Phase Approach to Repeal and Replace Obamacare ...

Phase 1 ...

REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMACARE ...
(Budget reconciliation process requiring 51 votes in Senate):

▶ Eliminate Obamacare’s mandates and penalties.▶ Dismantle the trillion dollars of Obamacare taxes.
▶ Provide real assistance for the middle class through tax credits to help individuals and families purchase the insurance they want.
▶ Put Medicaid, the Federal Government's primary health care program for low income individuals and families on a sustainable foundation.▶ Give individuals and families more control over their healthcare dollars and decisions by expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSA).▶ Provide resources and flexibility to States to empower them to bring premiums down and help their vulnerable citizens.

Phase 2 ...

PROVIDE ESSENTIAL REGULATORY RELIEF ...
(HHS/Tom Price):

▶ Adopting regulatory reforms to stabilize insurance markets and increase coverage choices for patients, including insurance portability and purchasing across state lines beginning as early as 2018.
▶ Loosening restrictions on the financial structure of insurance plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges, which will give individuals and families access to lower premium options.
▶ Improving choices for patients and putting downward pressure on prices by curbing abuses of the enrollment processes and encouraging full-year enrollment.

Phase 3 ...

REFORM HEALTHCARE THROUGH ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION ...
(Outside of budget reconciliation process that requires 60 votes in Senate):

▶ Allow health insurance to be sold across state lines.▶ Allow Americans to use the money in their HSAs to pay for more healthcare costs.
▶ Streamline processes at the FDA, removing the red tape that slows down approvals of generic competitors to high-price drugs in order to lower the cost of medicine.
▶ Allow small businesses to band together, through Association Health Plans, and negotiate for lower health insurance costs for their employees .
▶ Reform the medical malpractice lawsuit system by ending doctors’ incentives to practice unnecessarily costly medicine.

Return power to the states to:

▶ Set the safeguards and other parameters governing their own health insurance markets, including repealing any of Obamacare’s insurance market distortions that could not be included in a budget reconciliation bill .
▶ Set priorities and enact creative solutions for serving their most vulnerable citizens in the Medicaid program.
▶ Lower premiums for everyone in their state through the use of high risk pools, reinsurance, health savings accounts, and other solutions, and provide assistance to lower income people."

Sounds pretty darn good to me.

So many (including Sean Hannity) were saying: "The Republicans have had 7 years to get this done!" Blame, blame, blame! "Why didn't they have something ready?" is the oft repeated refrain.

But the truth is Republicans did have the bill ready. It was the previously written Tom Price Bill and President Trump strategically appointed Tom Price as Director of Health and Human Services. The bill WAS ready! They were using the previous bill that Tom Price had helped prepare.

The attitude that we saw, yesterday, in the few Republicans that wouldn't support this bill is what kept it from moving forward and it is a dangerous attitude, in my opinion. It is the same attitude that we saw in 2008 and 2012 when the Ron Paul agenda so badly divided conservatives that people stayed home in the general election, rather than get out and vote for someone that Ron Paul had deemed as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Because of that divide we got Obama - not just once, but twice. Yeah that claim to "purity" really worked well, didn't it?

Why is it always the Paul's that do the disrupting? Why is it yet another Paul that once again keeps a conservative plan, strategy, or answer from moving forward? You know, the Paul's that keep claiming to be not really Republican, but libertarian?

I still suspect a skunk in the chicken house, just as I did in 2008 and 2012. It is interesting to me it is two of the same name. Surely their disruptive efforts and continued success to those ends are just coincidental, but I am really getting tired of it. 

Rand's bill is supposedly ready; waiting in the wings to move forward. It remains to be seen if it is indeed anymore conservative than this one was, or if it will even get anywhere. It will be interesting to see. If it isn't, we can safely assume all the distraction and dissatisfaction Rand created was only about Rand and getting his name on the bill. That name. Things smell like a skunk to me.

 

Taking Our Temperature

Everyone loves to read small poignant quotes from a celebrity or author they recognize. I think we all love to read those little memes on social media, that get our attention with a photo and just a few words. Thoughts that will make one think; that are to the point, and that are heart hitting seem to be pretty popular these days. I believe quotes probably always have been useful.

I love them myself. A few eloquent words to express what we are thinking, validates what we believe and often encourages us.

If I use a quote in my writing or on social media, however, I am extremely careful to do research on who said it and why. I like things used in context to understand the true meaning. I believe it is extremely important.

Further, I also want to know what exactly the person who said it stands for, and what their world view might be. The reason for this is simply that I do not want to promote someone who has an opposite belief system as mine. That is something for each of us to determine; but I am not going to unwittingly promote someone with whom I disagree. Say for example, I quoted someone who is a racist. Maybe the quote had nothing to do with race, but people knowing who he is, might then believe that I am a racist, or that I support racism. And that would be a fair assumption, in my opinion. Simply because someone said something that was correct on one issue and I have quoted them, it would be natural to think that I might agree with the author and we are like-minded on everything. It is simply human nature to think this way. Or what if someone saw the quote and they liked it too? What if they didn't know anything about the author of the quote, but then started trying to find other writings or information about this person? That would be quite common. What if they found that everything this person believed was detrimental to their life style, but they did not yet have the wisdom or discernment to recognize the fallacies or problems? What if they trusted me for my discernment on these things and I carelessly let them down?

You probably know where I am going with this by now. With all the recent discussion about the new movie, The Shack, I am a bit surprised by the acceptance of it by Christians. I decided it was time to weigh in, myself.

I think I have pretty much heard or read all the arguments. I believe I pretty well understand the pros and cons that have been brought ever since the book by author Paul Young was published in 2007. The main argument among Christians who defend this book/movie seems to be...

• "Well anything that gets us talking about God is good." 
• "Use it as an evangelism tool, by talking about it."

The discussion, when these people are pressed, then usually ends in:

• "It's fiction!!"

But these arguments never seem to address the point that there are non-believers that are going to see this movie without the benefit of evangelism. Not everyone has someone in their life that can help clarify, or advise them. Unbelievers are going to be left with the belief that this is who our God is. There are going to be baby Christians, or those that are not solid in their faith, that can easily be led astray by incorrect doctrine. I believe we are all accountable for that, wherever it crosses our paths.

"But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." ~ 1 Corinthians 8:9. There are numerous verses regarding this; I believe that demonstrates its importance.

Taking such liberties with our faith that Paul Young has in this book, there is a very good chance that his next work may be even more inaccurate and even more dangerous. What then? We have opened a can of worms by our acceptance of the first. Where and when are we going to draw the line and stand for truth?

Aren't we encouraged in Scripture to take a firm stand?  "To chose this day whom we will serve." We are taught in 1 Peter 5:8 to "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"

We must understand good and evil and promote that which is right. We, as Christians, know well the admonishments; why do we chose to ignore them when it comes to this?

The postmodernism being taught in our schools and colleges today would have us believe that there is no black and white. They insist there are only shades of grey that we need to manipulate as we walk through our lives. Well, perhaps things do turn grey in our life. But that doesn't mean things are NOT black and white; good and evil; right and wrong. It only means we have accepted the grey as we try to finagle the path we have chosen.

The media, many in Hollywood, and those who despise our faith, love to test us. They love to take our temperature by disseminating a little controversy at a time. They want to see just exactly what we will accept and how far they can maneuver their agenda. Those that would seek to destroy our faith want to push us to see how far they can go before we will say, "WHOA!! Enough is enough!"

 For those that say this book/movie is only fiction: I would say BUT! But  there is a problem with that thought! This movie is being haled and touted as a "Christian movie"! The movie has been given a designation of "Christian" which demonstrates that it should hold to Christian values and beliefs. And quite simply, it absolutely does NOT. It has an intentional connection to Christianity, so therefore there is a greater danger in its teaching, than a movie that truly is "just fiction" - i.e. one that has no correct doctrine, nor any intentions to try to teach doctrine. The bigger danger with this movie is that it is being haled as such a great "Christian" movie! That is far more dangerous than say A Dog's Purpose that talks about reincarnation of DOGS, but no intention to promote a faith. This movie is far more worrisome than those little Hallmark movies that are often off doctrinally, but still like to occasionally mention God.

There comes a time, when we must stand for the Word of God. We cannot let untruths continue, because they make us feel good. We cannot continue to rationalize and justify, and present straw man arguments simply because it is something we see as innocuous. There comes a time when we must chose between good and evil, black and white, right and wrong. We must stand for our faith and the doctrinal issues that are the Cornerstone of what we believe.

There are numerous warnings in Scripture about false teachers. There is also a warning for those who believe they are called to teach. This verse is often overlooked. We all like to be considered teachers at times. It builds us up; makes us feel useful and like we know more than most. And truthfully, when we are promoting something as well-known and discussed as this movie - in an instance such as this - we are teaching our faith. We best head this clear warning.

3My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.  ~ James 3:1-2 NKJV

Finally, we all know the story about the frog thrown into hot water that will quickly jump out. But a frog in cool water, when the water is slowly heated to a boil, will simply accept it and be boiled to his death.

Shouldn't we be aware that a little truth watered down or misconstrued is no truth at all? Shouldn't we want to be on fire for our faith and stand for truth wherever we can? The non-believer will not have discernment to recognize doctrinal error, but they will recognize one who contends firmly for their faith as opposed to one who is on the fence, or one who has a taste for the world. The unbeliever is taking our temperature, too. And really, when people are seeking truth, they want truth. Why would we give them anything else?

¹⁶ So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

~ Revelation 3:16 KJV