Religious Exemption for Obamacare.

http://americanvision.org/9564/get-obamacare/#sthash.eT4r2ANb.dpbs

Article below by Dr Joel McDurmon:

During a radio interview recently, the host was shocked when I told him that Christians, generally, can get out of ObamaCare right now if they so choose. Really? How?

Many people are still not aware that health care sharing ministries like the one run by my friends at Samaritan Ministries lobbied and debated with Congress hard during the 2009 fight over ObamaCare. As a result of their efforts, and the nature and track record of the ministry, they earned an exemption from the individual mandate in ObamaCare for members of the sharing ministry.

Long story short, join Samaritan Ministries and you are exempt from ObamaCare’s individual mandate.

And this comes among the many other advantages of Samaritan, including the facts that sharing costs are in most cases much lower than insurance premiums, and that no money whatsoever ever funds or helps fund abortions, other planned-parenthood activities, or a variety of other sinful lifestyle consequences.

I am surprised that more Christians do not seem to be aware of this exemption. It has even received fairly mainstream news coverage, reports from Christian News, and others.

I was mildly amused a few days back to read an article from Reason.com called “Obamacare vs. Samaritan Health-Care Ministry: A Case Study.” The article is quite good in relating details and good case examples of Samaritan. But it carries what seems to me to be a pessimistic bias against the ministry. It says, “Samaritan may soon become a casualty of new incentives created by Obamacare,” because, “Under Obamacare, most Samaritan members will be able to purchase health insurance policies that offer richer benefits for lower prices, thanks to significant taxpayer subsidies.”

Samaritan’s vice president, James Lansberry, notes the obvious: Samaritan members join because of religious convictions, not merely financial benefits, especially government subsidies. But, the Reason author then argues, even just a tiny drop in membership can damage the ministry. It seems to me the guy wants the ministry to fail because of ObamaCare.

This amuses me somewhat because it shows an inherent tension of humanistic libertarianism. Note: Reason.com is not “liberal” like Slate or HuffPost. It is not pro-big-government. But it is not conservative or Christian, either. Rather, it is humanistic libertarian, as I said. It looks with scientistic, enlightened disdain upon faith and devout people of faith. In our God-gullibility and blind faith crutchism, we represent so much of what is holding back humanity.

So, Reason wants small government and liberty, but it does not know the Christ of liberty. It does not understand the sacrificial life necessary to reclaim liberty in a tyrannical world, nor does it understand the Christian faith necessary for such a sacrificial lifestyle to be viable among a group of people. Thus, it cannot believe that Christians will truly remain devout enough to maintain liberty when just a few hundred dollars of government subsidies are tossed their way.

What this article unwittingly shows is just that: maintaining freedom and liberty absolutely requires a devotion that transcends mere monetary incentives. Personal responsibility means personal effort and personal sacrifice, and without this, tyranny will inevitably grow. It also shows that despite all talk of enlightenment and scientific progress, Reason’s view of man is quite pessimistic: he can be herded instinctively under tyranny with mere economic incentive; he will not sacrifice to stand on principles of faith.

Sacrificing for liberty is, of course, one of the main themes of Restoring America One County at a Time, including the chapter on welfare and health care in which I first prescribed Samaritan Ministries as the Christian vaccination against ObamaCare. Read my relevant articles in chapter two, Welfare.

If you’d like to read the actual exemption for yourself, check out Section 1501(d)(2)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act where “Religious Exemptions” for “Health Care Sharing Ministry” are encoded. The same law is repeated as Section 5000A(d)(2)(B) of the IRS Code.

Or you can just call Samaritan now and let them explain it to you. They will help you with any other questions as well.

- See more at: http://americanvision.org/9564/get-obamacare/#sthash.eT4r2ANb.dpuf

Clarification on govt shutdown and healthcare

I wrote this to my family and friends. Please pass this along:

Family and Friends,

As you all are probably aware, the federal govt has "shut down".

I have been listening to the news and perusing various news articles on-line, and there is a lot of rubbish, half-truths, and general "the-sky-is-falling" rhetoric that can cloud the real issues and the real situation. 

Needless to say, it is quite irritating..

So, here is a summary of the facts to counter what you may be hearing on the media. Some of you are more well informed than others, so, this message is intended as a blanket message to cover all bases.. those who are political junkies, and those who are not.

1) That term "shut-down" is a rather disingenuous to the actual situation. Sometimes, you will also hear the term "partial shut-down." 

What does that exactly mean?

Yes, there will be many federal workers that will be on furlough (~800,000).. And yes, that is quite a distressing thing for those federal workers. However, if one is to look at the entirety of the situation, on an aggregate scale, what this "shut down" or "partial shut down" actually means is that 70% of the federal govt (entire civilian fed govt workforce is ~2.5M govt workers, part time and full time) will still be in operation.

TSA will still be around, military will be fully paid (the only bill so far that was 100% approved by both houses, and signed by POTUS), and USDA inspectors will still be around. (while FDA inspectors will not be).

-So, is it quite distressing that we have people not going to work for the fed? 

Yes.. of course, as it should be since they are earning a living through the fed govt.
However, let's put it in context and understand that the country is not going to implode because the federal govt is "shutting down" partially as some politicians are saying that it will.

-Additionally, while it is distressing that these federal workers are not going to be working until this budget issue is resolved, let's not forget that the entire country is struggling with finding quality work to do.. And while the unemployment rate is touted as ~7.3%, the actual figure is closer to ~15%-20% because the 7.3% number does not take into account people who have stopped looking for work or who have been out of a job for a certain length of time..

Example: If I lost my job, and I stopped looking, say, after 1 year of searching, does that mean I am no longer unemployed? No, of course not.. But by the definition of "unemployed" by the fed govt, I am no longer "unemployed."

With this 7.3%, this translates to 11.3M people.. So, yes, while 800,000 is a big deal, the country itself has been struggling for many years now.. But, the kicker is, once this budget issue is resolved (in about 1-2 months, most likely), all 800,000 people will be able to go back to work, get a paycheck, and get backpay for the months that they were not working.

Can we say that about the (actual) 15%-20% that are not working right now?
Once Congress passes something, these people will still be out of a job.

2) As a house keeping note, please be aware that the fiscal year for the federal govt starts on Oct 1 2013. So, even though it is calendar year 2013, we are technically in the **fiscal year*** 2014 now.
So, this is why you are hearing about this stuff now, and this is why it is a big deal around Sep/Oct timeframe every year because this is when Congress is supposed to pass a budget.. 

As you can probably understand, this has rarely been the case that proper appropriations and/or a budget have been passed on time.

3) What is actually being fought over is what is called the "continuing resolution"... this is a "stop-gap" measure that Congress is supposed to pass to fund the govt for a certain length of time (say, several months).. You may hear that term, or the term "CR"..
The purpose of a CR is to fund the govt when there is no formal budget..

So, with this budget battle, it was not even a battle for a formalized budget for the entire federal govt, but it was a battle over the CR that is to fund the govt until Thanksgiving... ?????? (I dont know the timeframe, so, please dont hold me to it).

4) Even with the whole govt "shutdown", this actually in no way affects the start of the health care implementation. It is still going on as scheduled, and the democrats anticipated that a situation like this would happen.. and so, in the event of a budget fight like this, they made the law in such a way that the law would still be funded, even without a Fiscal Year 2014 appropriated budget... (or FY14 appropriated CR more specifically in this case).

Any delay in implementation has to do with technical glitches or overall lack of competence in attempting to implement a program properly and on time...

It has nothing to do with the budget battle going on in Capitol Hill, absolutely nothing...

5) Initially, the issue for the CR was the House put in a measure to completely defund Obamacare. This obviously crashed and burned in the Senate.

6) Before the Senate voted on this first iteration of the House bill, Sen Cruz went on his 21 hour (with help from others) marathon speech.. It was NOT technically a filibuster because whether he did that speech or not, the Senate vote was still going to happen as planned. In Sen Cruz's speech, he mentioned numerous instances of how Obamacare has forced small businesses to cut back their hours and lay off employees, and also to drop their health plans.

Please make no mistake, it is because of the health care law that these businesses are suffering these consequences. For instance, UPS has dropped their spouse coverage. You can look it up online...

7) Just as importantly, in different ways though, if you listened to Sen Cruz's speech (at least part of it), you will realize that the entire intent behind the health care law is to ultimately go to a single-payer system. Sen Reid has emphatically stated this from the beginning as has Rep Pelosi..
Look it up, dont take my word for it.

For those who are not familiar with what a single-payer system is, in the end, the federal govt will be who is in charge of running health care.. No private insurance.
Do we really want a govt bureaucrat to make decisions about your healthcare, when it should be between you, your doctor and your insurance company?

If the federal govt cant even execute building construction properly (and no, they cannot), how could they possibly implement health care properly, when it is infinitely more complex?

8) The second, third and fourth iterations that the House passed, which the Senate immediately rejected was over the individual mandate and eliminating the exemption for congress and the president from the health care law.. which of course, the senate summarily rejected generally along party lines.

In other words, while we regular citizens will be subject to this law, Congress (and staffers) and the President (and his family) will not be...

-Please understand that the House did try their earnest to "compromise" while the Senate immediately rejected all attempts, and refused to "negotiate" at all because of the anti-Obamacare legislation.
Contrary to what you may be hearing, it isnt the House that is attempting to shut down the govt. Each CR bill that was sent to the Senate included fully funding the entire govt while maintaining an exemption from the individual mandate and eliminating the exemption of the POTUS and congress.. 

Now currently, the House is attempting to send separate CR bills to fund separate aspects of the govt piecemeal, and every time, it is expected that Sen Reid will reject these attempts, even though these attempts have nothing to do with the healthcare issue.

9) If you think that this is a pro-republican message, you are completely wrong. We are in this mess because of both the mealy-mouthed Republicans and the liberal democrats.

10) In the end, if we are to understand that Obamacare is designed to fail so that we can go to a single payer system (which has been flat out admitted by Sen Reid, and Pelosi, among others..) this entire health care debate is about control..

It has never been about health care.

Control of your life and your health.

Prior to Obamacare, 90% of Americans were getting some sort of healthcare. And of that group, 90% liked their healthcare. If this issue was really about healthcare for all, the bill should have only focused on the 10%... not forcing the entire nation to be on some healthcare, while exempting big business, labor unions, and themselves.

If the govt funds insurance, they can control whether you get a hip replacement when you are 75 yrs old. For instance, in the military healthcare system, it is already a quasi-Obamacare healthcare. A good friend that I know can tell you about it when she was pregnant with her daughter. Because their experience was so bad, she refused to give birth at Camp Pendleton, and they went all the way to Los Angeles to give birth.

And guess who pays for all 300M-350M people's insurance??? You do.. the taxpayer..

What right does the govt have to have this kind of control over you?
By what moral authority does the govt have to control you in this way?

The answer is, they have no authority to control you in this way.. Only through a proper understanding of the authority that Jesus Christ gave to the civil magistrate can we truly and properly understand that govt is to avenge evil, not to control your life by deciding whether you live or die based on whether a medical procedure is too expensive..

In our family worship in the evenings, my family and I pray that God's justice will be done and that God would raise up godly leaders and call upon the church to use its prophetic voice to command all people everywhere (including the govt) to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

So, in conclusion, please consider what I have written above whenever you hear anything about this issue, and I hope that I am helping so that we all can be better informed citizens. Please also call your representatives and let your voice be heard.

It is difficult at this time to know how things will play out in terms of these multiple CR bills that will keep getting rejected, but please let your voice be heard. Please urge your representatives to stop controlling us and let us decide what is best for our health and well-being. 

Though this current effort in the House does not completely stop Obamacare (partly because the CR's keep getting rejected), it is a step in the right direction.. 

A) Please call your congressman, and tell him/her to do what it takes to do away with this law, step by step.. Your reps need to hear from you... Call both repub and democrat... 

B) There is an online petition that you can sign: http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/ Over 2M people have already signed. 

C) Knowledge and information is power... These are some good websites for news that actually give you the information you need to make an informed decision.. 

www.michaelsavage.com

www.theblaze.com

www.americanvision.org

D) Inform your friends and others you know. You can forward this message. 

E) Lastly, let's ask God to execute his justice in this land and that all will repent and believe in Jesus. Let us repent of our sins that have contributed to this mess. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. 

The low information American citizen.

     What has concerned me for quite some time now is the utter lack of information being purposely left out by such radical leftist "news" organizations such as CNN, and MSNBC. It really bothers me that I have friends and relatives who actually think that these organizations are actually worth their salt in terms of being reputable journalistic organizations.

     Even if one were to primarily get his news from these sources, if he were a thinking man, he would eventually see that what is not being reported and what is being reported is very noteworthy, which should cause him to search the Internet for other sources of news. There is almost too much information out there on the web, and there are many excellent politically conservative news sources here, and here and here and even better, Christian ones as well. There really is no excuse for a person not be informed.

     For example, this whole ridiculous debacle with the George Zimmerman trial, in which the main point behind this was that trial was about race. This is the mantra that the main stream media was pushing, and like docile sheep, so many Americans simply believed it, thereby revealing their intellectual laziness to dig deeper and actually look at the facts of the case. There is a problem in that if you actually looked at the trial and the arguments that the prosecution and the defense were using, neither side used race during the trial, and even the jurors agreed that this trial was not about race. Look it up. Dont take my word for it.

    My point behind this is that a large part of why our country is the way that it is, and a large part of why our Christians have such a weak practice of a strong Christian ethic is that they are constantly being bombarded by mediocre journalism that touts itself as the gold standard. Many Christians don't realize that they are falling into the exact same trap as the pagan, which is using the media as their authority. They may not realize it, but their Christian worldview is so weak and their doctrine so poor, that they simply replace God with the pagan media.

     For example, a Christian man that I know kept telling me how it would be a good idea to enact stricter gun control legislation after the Sandy Hook murders. Reducing the number of rounds in a magazine, and eliminating semi-automatic weapons and only keeping non-semi-automatic weapons. It was obvious to me that he was simply regurgitating the liberal viewpoints without realizing how foolish he was sounding.

     First of all, he has never handled a gun in his entire life, and he speaks as if he is the authority on weapons.. I have handled weapons in the past, so I know what I am talking about. I hope I dont have to belabor the point in terms of the absurdity of what I was dealing with. For those that dont know, whether it is 10 rounds in a magazine or 30 rounds, the amount of damage done with a 10 round magazine is the same as a 30 round magazine as long as the shooter reloads fast enough, and in the Sandy Hook case, the shooter would have been able to reload fast enough. The delay would only have been less than 1 second if he only had 10 round magazines.

     Second, automatic weapons are outright illegal everywhere in the US, and if you have one, even if it is in your home, in your basement, you will go to jail. By definition, if your weapon is not automatic, it is semi-automatic. One pull of the trigger for one firing of a round. To want to ban semi-automatic weapons and only have non semi-automatic weapons is clearly an absurd and grossly uninformed statement.

     Third, the shooter was breaking about just about every gun law on the books.. He wasnt old enough to have a gun, he was bringing guns into a gun-free zone, he took the guns from his mother, he didnt register the guns that he stole from his mom, he concealed the guns in his clothes before the shooting etc... We already have laws in place and my friend simply could not understand that enacting more laws would not have prevented Sandy Hook because the shooter was already breaking so many laws to begin with... laws that were supposedly designed to prevent gun violence.

     Fourth, his entire premise for why we need more gun control is based on the fallacy of cause. It is a basic philosophical/logical concept that items or things do not cause events, it is people who causes these events. By his logic, we should ban certain types of cars and alcohol because DUI's kill pedestrians. Or perhaps ban forks because we ate too much spaghetti and it made us gain so much weight.

     Fifth, this is where the whole idea of media comes in. He was so uninformed and so willing to make the media his God that he didn't know that on that very same day as Sandy Hook, a man in China murdered about the same number of kids with a knife. To be consistent, we should start banning kitchen knives as well. At this point, people would say, that it was the person's fault, not the knife's fault. What is the difference for a gun? Nothing...

     And I havent even begun to talk about the philsophical, theological and constitutional arguments for proper self defense in relation to guns.

     It is amazing how much control the media has on people, and how people have made the media their God, and they will absolutely refuse to listen to other viewpoints because of their authority, the liberal media, is saying something completely opposite to the proper Biblical response.. and this includes low information Christians as well.

     Another example is here. Take a look at the video, here. You will notice how grossly uninformed these college students are. It concerns me because these people are the ones who will eventually make the decisions in our country as voters and as government officials and whatever other vocation you can think of. These people make decisions based on the narrative of what is being fed to them, not because they ever actually gave the situation any critical thought.

     This should scare you and motivate you to do what you can in your current station in life.
   
    Dont be stupid sheep. Be informed so that you can make the most biblically consistent decision possible based on ALL the information that you got from searching and analyzing, not by being intellectually lazy and having things spoon fed for you by the liberal media.

     In theology, it is critical to understand all sides of an issue before making a decision on what particular theological viewpoint you are going to hold.. Calvinism, Arminiasm, Paedobaptism, creedobaptism etc... It should be easy to see why one needs to do this.
     Why is this any different for political and cultural issues? The point is that it isnt any different at all.

600 × 473 - shiroboi.deviantart.com

A fraud of the worst kind.

If you have been keeping any sort of passive watch on the whole homosexuals in the military issue, you probably have come across the name of Lt. Dan Choi. Here is a picture of him.

He is a West Point graduate, fluent in Arabic, an infantry officer, an Iraq war veteran, and homosexual. He made a big deal about it by announcing his homosexuality on the Rachel Maddow show, here. And he is a very eloquent and powerful orator. 

He is probably one of the most outspoken and passionate supporters of homosexual rights and for the repeal of DADT. 

Anyone who has not been in the military would be easily impressed by his seemingly solid educational, professional and military qualifications. And of course, he milks it for all its worth, detailing his troubles for being homosexual and in the military. Of course, this is to highlight the unfairness of DADT and how outstanding officers like him live in the shadows because of DADT. 

And through the Rachel Maddow show (herself a lesbian), he announces who he really is and subsequently, he gets kicked out of the military. To any average person, this would seem like an immense travesty of obscenely epic proportions. 

How can such outstanding warrior possibly kicked out for something as minor as his sexual preference!?!?!?!?!?

This post is not about the direct issue of DADT or homosexuals in the military, although it can easily be about that. And really, this particular post should resonate with those that were for the repeal of DADT. 

Lt. Dan Choi is the perfect example of utter media bias, and totally slanting the scales to his favor to make his position seem noble and righteous. I will attempt to show you that he is nothing but a big fraud and that this should be a warning to anyone from whatever side of DADT you come down on. 

1) You will notice that Dan Choi's rank is 1st Lt. As you come out of West Point, you are commissioned as a 2nd Lt. (Paygrade of Officer 1, O1). Therefore, his paygrade at the time that he went on Maddow's show is O2 (1st Lt).
While most people wouldn't think anything of this, I caught on to this immediately. 

If you notice, he graduated West Point in 2003, and he went on to the Maddow show in 2009. In the area of military promotions, if you are an O1, in almost exactly 2 years, you will make O2.. And, unless you serious were extremely poor in your performance or got a DUI or accidentally killed someone, you will make O3 (Army Captain) two years after you made O2. 

So, by May 2007, Dan Choi should have been Captain Dan Choi, and not Lt Dan Choi. 

It is convenient that no one ever has brought this up. How could such a super soldier like Choi have gotten passed over for O3? Remember, he didnt announce his homosexuality until 2009, well after 2007 when he should have made O3. 

Again, the only way that he could not have made O3 is if he had some of really really egregious performance problems, got a DUI or killed someone accidentally. 

2) You would also hear that he is a "combat veteran" from the Iraq war. Really? How could one possibly tell whether a soldier has been in combat? In the military, you can tell by the particular decorations that that person is wearing on his uniform. In the Navy and Marine Corps, it is simply a ribbon called the Combat Action ribbon. 

In the Army, it is an actual badge, either the Combat Action badge (for non-infantry soldiers) or the Combat Infantryman badge (infantry).. Basically, you must have been actually engaging the enemy (taking fire and returning fire) in order to rate the CIB. What does Dan Choi have on his uniform? 

435 × 580 - benbakerphoto.com

You will notice that he does NOT have the CIB on his uniform. It would be the top badge above his rectangle ribbons on his left breast. 

3) Typically, when you attend a service academy, you incur a ~5 year obligation for all of the money that they spent on you. He transferred in 2008 to the reserves. But what is strange is that he STILL is a 1st Lt in the reserves and has not been promoted after O2. Usually, when you go into the reserves after having been passed over, you usually promote to the next rank in the reserves. 

So, while I don't doubt his ability in speaking Arabic (he is actually very good), a little digging into his military history would yield a person who has never been in combat, and performed so poorly or did something so stupid that he couldnt get promoted to O3, and couldnt even get promoted in the reserves.. Keep in mind also that he came in during the height of the Iraq war when infantry officers were in high demand, and promotions to O3 were very robust.. (~over 90% selection)... 

Funny how the media doesn't mention any of this. Again, regardless of your position on DADT, Dan Choi, while seeming to be the poster child warrior victim of DADT, was nothing but a big fraud who couldnt get promoted during a time of over 90% promotion rate, and has never been in combat while touting himself as a combat veteran. 

That's like having Michael Horton doing all of this White Horse Inn ministry stuff and then we all find out later that he never actually got a PhD, all the while touting his academic and theological credentials.

Signing a petition.

This is very chilling. This should serve as a reminder for what we as Christians must do to educate ourselves and our children to be thinking members of society. This also serves to remind us how we should be reaching out to those around us.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/09/watch-and-weep-heres-a-video-of-people-signing-a-petition-to-repeal-the-bill-of-rights/

The thought police

The church has nothing to say about this issue to the police or in the public square. We must willingly let the state run over Christians and their faith. We must intentionally be cowardly and not bold, and not speak out for justice. The church cannot speak out against these kinds of acts against preachers. 

Christianity has not authority over politics. It is entirely acceptable for atheists to tell us how to think, yet it is entirely rude and unloving for Christians to tell others how to think, even though we have normative truth and a fully epistemologically consistent worldview while the atheists cannot account for their knowledge or ethics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html

Fourth of July

This is a letter that I sent to my family. Hopefully, for the readers out there, you can do this as well:
------------------------------------------------
Hello Family,

As we go into the Fourth of July holiday, I hope that everyone has some good rest and relaxation.

A family tradition that my family will be starting this year is to read the Declaration of Independence on 4th of July.
It didn't work out so well last year for various logistical reasons.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

I decided that this would be appropriate, obviously given the nature of the holiday.
But more than that, it will remind my family just what exactly were the issues that brought about the revolution that started our country officially as the united States (plural)... (as opposed to what we now call the United States (singular)).

As we read through the Declaration, we will be reminded of the strains and stresses that the British empire was putting on the colonies and how the role of something as seemingly mundane as taxes had played such a foundational motivation for our revolution. The colonists understood that the issue was not about taxes in and of itself, but the issue was about control, and what authority the British had over the colonists.

Even in Presbyterian churches of that day, there was debate on whether it was exactly biblical to be rebelling against the British government, when this issue is understood in light of Romans Ch 13, in which Paul calls the civil magistrate a minister of God.. (Hence, this is why for instance, in the British govt today, we still refer to top officials as ministers... or for instance, the prime minister. It is the borrowed Christian capital that Britain is still using...)

Ultimately, the presbyterians decided that it was, in this exceptional circumstance, appropriate to rebel given the fact that the magistrate rejected his implied obligation in accordance to Rom 13. 

I understand that there is some debate on whether the Declaration was actually signed on July 4 etc... But, for simplicity's sake, it seems easy to do it on July 4, since that is what is generally recognized today.

In any event, as citizens, and for those who are Christian on this list, may I encourage you to take this same practice of reading the Declaration of Independence on July 4? And through this reading, you can understand just how much of a principled stand our forefathers took, and it should hopefully help us examine our own current political context and how the war that happened several hundred years ago is relevant to us today.

Chris Lee

 

Is our republic at stake?

Please read this. In the next day, I am going to attempt to provide some sort of boiler plate template to reach out to your representatives for this issue.

Original article here.
----------------------

By Garth Kant

WASHINGTON — Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has two dire warnings for America in an exclusive interview with WND.

* Don’t count on the House to stop amnesty.

* And, if amnesty passes it will end our constitutional republic as we know it.

Bachmann says she doesn’t want to sound alarmist but when you boil it down, that is what is really at stake.

She says there is one solution — only a grassroots effort can stop President Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform America.

So, she is issuing a call to arms to all WND readers and all Americans, contact your representatives in Congress to stop amnesty before it is too late.

Bachmann explained, step by step, how a bill she believes conservatives should naturally oppose easily could be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Bachmann explained, step by step, how a bill she believes conservatives should naturally oppose easily could be approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

“The Senate is going to pass a very bad bill. The House will pass what will sound like a pretty good bill. But I’m just here to tell you, it’s a Trojan horse.”

The lawmaker said the bill will say “We’re going to secure the borders,” so all the Republicans will vote for this bill. Then the bill will go to a conference committee where it will undergo a dramatic change.

“The good guts of the Trojan horse bill will be pulled out. The very bad amnesty provisions will be put in the bill. The bill will go to the House floor and it won’t be Republicans that pass it.

“It’ll be Nancy Pelosi leading all the House Democrats to vote for it, and just enough Republicans will vote for the bill and you’ll have amnesty,” predicted Bachmann.

She said that’s been the strategy behind the scenes all along.

“I think the master plan of the ruling class that runs Washington, D.C., is to ram this bill through before the American people know what has hit them, and before members of Congress even know what has hit them.”

Bachamnn said there is only one person who can stop the master plan and that person is “you.”

“I’m just telling WND viewers that if you sit this one out and you don’t start hitting the phone lines and email, calling and visiting your representatives now and saying, ‘No amnesty now, no amnesty ever,’ we’re going to have perpetual amnesty for illegal immigration.”

She predicted if amnesty becomes the law “the whole political system will change.”

“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands.”

The lawmaker said that would create a permanent progressive class and the country would never return to its constitutional foundations.

“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important.”

Bachmann said as much harm as Obamacare is doing to the country, amnesty could be even worse.

“It could bankrupt us even faster. That’s why we need the WND audience to weigh in now and hard. Let your member of Congress know. We need to hear from you.”

She called this “a total call to arms. Don’t count on politicians to stop it. They won’t.”

The congresswoman said the political class in Washington, both on the right and on the left, made a decision to have what it calls immigration reform, but it really will be nothing more than amnesty and a disaster for our economy and our country.

“It’s going to lower wages, lower benefits, bankrupt the United States and take away job opportunities for our kids. This will change our nation forever and the future of our nation. And I think it could very likely mean that we will never again have an opportunity to reclaim our constitutional republic.”

Bachmann feels we owe more than that to our ancestors who died to give us this country, and to our children and future generations.

“We will not successfully pass the torch of liberty if we have perpetual amnesty. It won’t happen.”

That’s why she is issuing a call to arms, one more time.

“I hate to tell people once again you’ve got to rise up, but this is the most important bill we are going to deal with in the next two years, and so, if people are going to weigh in at all, now’s the time.

“The Republic is at stake.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/the-republic-is-at-stake/#3ygU0kqS7yioAly4.99 

Speaking boldly from the pulpit.

     Over the years, even before I became a theonomist, I have occasionally asked my pastors at the various churches that I have attended to pray about certain issues... (So, I guess I wasn't always a consistent (R)2K advocate but I was still positive that theonomy was "clearly" wrong... How did that one turn out?).

     In the past 10 years, due to job moves and not whimsical moves such as I didn't like the new carpet at church, I have attended 6 different churches. In three of them, I have asked the pastors to pray issues that I felt were very pressing. I didn't even ask them to preach on them, just to do some sort of supplicational congregrational prayer. And I didnt even ask that often: I asked one time each at two separate churches, and two times at another. Given the number of months that I attended each church, that amounts to less than 1% of the time.

    -Right as my business trip to Kuwait ended, I asked one of the local chaplains to befriend a local Bengladeshi dry cleaner guy that I had befriended in hopes that the chaplain could share Christ with him. Over email, he told me that he would not share Christ with my dry cleaner friend because of the regional policy on no proseltyzing in the region.
Would my dry cleaner friend really have reported him to the law enforcement if the chaplain shared Christ with him?

     -I once asked a pastor to pray against a particular legislation that was being generated that would ***make it illegal*** to bring up any future legislation against abortion in any way, restrict it, make it more difficult to get one etc...
Legislation that would make murdering babies legal all the time without opposition??? Surely this was something that would garner an important and specific prayer topic for congregation prayer. The response I got was that he wouldn't pray against this specific legislation, but he would pray for abortion generally. When I asked him about it afterwards, he told me that he didn't want to lose his tax exempt status, and that it was a "political" matter and it wasn't appropriate to bring up politics from the pulpit, even if that meant talking about forever allowing "doctors" and mothers to be able to murder babies without any fear of further legislation to prevent them from exercising their "right".

    -I once asked another pastor to pray for the German family that is currently potentially going to be deported back to Germany. They left Germany because they were going to be arrested for taking their kids out of public school and attempting to homeschool them. He never prayed about them specifically, but to be fair, he at least prayed a very general prayer about govt persecution and control. Another time, I asked the same pastor to pray for the DOD move that would attempt to court-martial military members for "prosiletyzing" to others. Same response. A general prayer, and no specifics.

     As I reflect back on these requests being either ignored, shot down, or answered in a very vague way, this seems to be a large swath of the church that is either afraid, or unwilling to preach God's law to every area of life, even in the face of seemingly strict government restrictions.

     Esp. now with homosexual marriage having the great potential to be "upheld", our churches will have to deal with this and there will be a lot of legal maneuvering and suing going on. The church is being actively persecuted and yet no one is able to speak out against these things, and in fact is unwilling to face the facts that the church is being persecuted by outside forces.

    Where are our ministers boldly preaching the law and driving people to the gospel? Why is it that Glenn Beck, a conservative talk show host and a Mormon, is rebuking pastors for something that Christians should understand better than a Mormon does?

     This has been going on for years, and not just pastors, but Christians in general refuse to become involved. Greg Bahnsen said in a lecture about 25 years ago that the church is being punished for its cowardice and apathy. I mentioned my feelings to my friend that I felt that with all of these things going on in our society today (abortion, marriage, marginalization of the church in the public square etc...) that the church was being punished and judged by God. He then told me about the Bahnsen lecture which I was unaware of until he told me.

     I don't know how long it is going to take before we wake from our slumber, and I don't know if our country will be able to last the next 50 years, given the moral decay in our society in general.

     Please continue to pray for boldness and loving action in your own life and for the church and her officers. If our country isnt around in the next 50 years because of our unwillingness to speak out and become involved, there won't be any more church to pray for and that will be further (temporal) judgement from God that we rightfully deserve.

God's Highest Creation

     According to the creation story, we humans are the highest of all of God's creation. Every once in a while, I come across certain things that seriously make me doubt this sometimes.. It really is a wonder that we have been able to survive as a country and society for this long, here.
     It's amazing to me how un-informed that people can be and are willing to be, and just how many ridiculously illogical things that people will believe.
     I don't really watch Fox News, since I mainly read my news and listen to the news on the radio. But, this stuff was too funny (and sad at the same time) to not post up.

    Here are some others, here, here, and here and below:

Interesting article on health care

     On American Vision, Dr. Joel McDurmon posted an article here about the health care law. 

     A different perspective.

Article is also pasted below:
------------------------

Liberty or … death by doctor visit?

Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.”

It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that would come with them!

A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions:

One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home.

Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here.

“Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question is that?

Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely answering this question at all may give some government officials probable cause to search your home.

The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that you have not stopped beating your wife?”

But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough, the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your wife!

Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have been physically

hurt or are you afraid of your partner?”

Bringing this down to home

The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014.

Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.” Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues, craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut up.” The Fox article relates,

“Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer under the law,” he explained.

Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under Obama.

“For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to answer the questions.

Three main things are of note here:

First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions, and

Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly,

Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive question.

If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer, it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.

Liberty or … death by doctor visit?

Read more at: http://americanvision.org/8087/liberty-or-death-by-doctor-visit/ | The American Vision

Liberty or … death by doctor visit?

Read more at: http://americanvision.org/8087/liberty-or-death-by-doctor-visit/ | The American Vision

Liberty or … death by doctor visit? Obamanation-Death-Panel4Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.” It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that would come with them! A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions: One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home. Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here. “Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question is that? Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely answering this question at all may give some government officials probable cause to search your home. Did you enjoy this article? Share the Love Get Free Updates Name Email The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that you have not stopped beating your wife?” But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough, the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your wife! Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?” Bringing this down to home The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014. Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.” Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues, craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut up.” The Fox article relates, “Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer under the law,” he explained. Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under Obama. “For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to answer the questions. Three main things are of note here: First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions, and Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly, Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive question. If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer, it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.

Read more at: http://americanvision.org/8087/liberty-or-death-by-doctor-visit/ | The American Vision

Obamanation-Death-Panel4 Published on May 21st, 2013 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon 1 Liberty or … death by doctor visit? Obamanation-Death-Panel4Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.” It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that would come with them! A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions: One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home. Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here. “Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question is that? Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely answering this question at all may give some government officials probable cause to search your home. Did you enjoy this article? Share the Love Get Free Updates Name Email The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that you have not stopped beating your wife?” But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough, the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your wife! Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?” Bringing this down to home The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014. Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.” Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues, craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut up.” The Fox article relates, “Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer under the law,” he explained. Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under Obama. “For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to answer the questions. Three main things are of note here: First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions, and Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly, Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive question. If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer, it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.

Read more at: http://americanvision.org/8087/liberty-or-death-by-doctor-visit/ | The American Vision

Liberty or … death by doctor visit? Obamanation-Death-Panel4Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.” It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that would come with them! A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions: One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in the home. Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here. “Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question is that? Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely answering this question at all may give some government officials probable cause to search your home. Did you enjoy this article? Share the Love Get Free Updates Name Email The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that you have not stopped beating your wife?” But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough, the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your wife! Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?” Bringing this down to home The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014. Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.” Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues, craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut up.” The Fox article relates, “Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer under the law,” he explained. Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under Obama. “For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to answer the questions. Three main things are of note here: First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions, and Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly, Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive question. If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer, it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.

Read more at: http://americanvision.org/8087/liberty-or-death-by-doctor-visit/ | The American Vision